I loved the comments I got on my last post! I have to say, despite my assertions to the contrary, I still left after the last post thinking I hadn't gotten it quite right. I still didn't know if "appreciate more" is the right way to put it. And then I realized how silly I had been! I had to ask my mom! Of course! She's the best source for this debate.
My mom became pregnant with my brother when she was unmarried, 17, and still in high school. Obviously unplanned. She and my dad got married and moved out to their own house not long after my brother was born. When my brother turned 2 she decided it was time to try for another. I am 9 years younger than my brother. Do the math. She had always had irregular periods and couldn't get pregnant. Her OB could only offer her clomid, which she took for many years with no luck. After many years of trying she read an article about new experimental infertility treatments offered at the University of Minnesota. She didn't even know infertility treatments existed (outside of clomid). About a year later, with the help of injectible drugs (she can't remember names), she became pregnant with me.
Mom knows what it's like to conceive "easily" (although the fertility doc later told her my brother probably beat out a million to one odds!) and to struggle with infertility. She got even less understanding from people as they felt she should quit feeling sorry for herself because she already had a child. But mom and dad wanted another very, very badly.
So I told her about this debate and asked her what she thinks. Surprisingly to me, she said she doesn't think infertile women appreciate their babies more. She thought that was a bad way to put it. But she agreed that the experience of pregnancy and parenthood is definitely different when you have truly struggled to get there. I don't think she had the right words to explain it either. So actually, thanks mom, you were no help.
But back to the comments on my last post. A couple of people said that they felt like they appreciated their babies and the experience more than they would have had they not been through infertility and/or loss. Not that they appreciated their babies any more than any other parent. That was a very good point! And in thinking about my analogy to, say, a wife who almost loses her husband and then learns to appreciate him more and take him for granted less... it's probably the same. That wife doesn't necessarily appreciate him more than another wife appreciates her husband, it has just changed her own experience and feelings.
So I think you guys (girls) got it right! And thank you! I think I feel better about this whole debate in my own head now. My readers are so smart. :)
I also appreciated (ha, there's that word again) that Basebell pointed out that just because you struggled to have your baby doesn't mean you can't have frustrations with parenting (so maybe that's what the insensitive greeting card was about, misguided as it might have been).
And believe me, I do have frustrations! Baby Girl is currently in a food refusal stage. It has gotten mildly better but it is still a fight to get her to eat enough some days. She would rather be looking around, showing off her manual dexterity by pulling her bottle out of her mouth, or blowing raspberries most of the time. She is still consistently getting fewer ounces per day than the recommended minimum but I try not to stress too much as she still has plenty of chub to spare! As long as she is growing appropriately I can't spend too much time comparing her to general recommendations.
Well, thanks again for your insightful comments! So maybe as infertiles we don't have the market cornered on appreciating our children but our experiences and feelings have definitely been colored by our paths that got us where we are.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
On Appreciation and Giving Thanks
I spend a lot of time lately looking at Baby Girl and feeling so thankful. Here I am, with everything I have ever wanted. I am truly blessed and this year there is even more to be thankful for than ever before. Sometimes my heart feels as though it will burst from the sheer quantity of the purest love I have ever felt. This, my friends, is worth fighting for.
**********************************************************
When I was 19 I was so frustrated by the acne that had plagued me all through my teenage years. Surely it should have been better by then, I thought. I had tried everything available OTC and via infomercials. Everything. I had even tried several prescription drugs (all nightmares). So I went to a dermatologist, again. He examined my skin and asked me if I had regular periods, which I had never had. He told me he thought I had PCOS and that I should check with an OBGYN. When I brought it up at my annual exam, she literally laughed at me but ordered an ultrasound to humor me. Guess what? Cysts all over my ovaries. And a clear imbalance in hormones. HA!
But wait, the joke was on me. I spent a lot of time searching the internet for info. You know, with a dial-up modem and some now-defunct search engine since I hadn't yet heard of Goo.gle. There wasn't a lot out there but I realized one thing - this was going to cause problems when I wanted to have children. The lack of regular periods had always bothered me, but it was always brushed off by the same OBGYN and she told me it would get better with age. Clearly that was not to be. I spent the next ten years wondering if I would ever experience pregnancy, whether I would have children or not. How do you get pregnant when you have two or three periods a year? That can't be good, right? I warned my then-boyfriend, now-hubby, in case he wanted out to find heartier breeding stock. I was lucky, he stayed.
Sometimes it was at the back of my mind. Sometimes at the forefront. Sometimes a doctor during grad school would look at a 26-year old me and say, "What are you waiting for? It will only get harder."
**********************************************************
A fellow blogger, Eileen, who had twins in August recently received a strange "congratulations" card from a family member and wrote about it on her blog. On the outside the card said, "Did you know that in some states you can legally dump your kids at the courthouse?" and on the inside said, "Road trip?". First of all, when is this card ever funny and who on earth would send it by way of congratulating a new mom, especially one who went through several losses and several IVFs as Eileen did. This was a serious "WTF?!?!".
I commented, and so did many other people. Most having the same WTF feelings. One anonymous (of course) commenter said this (boldface added by me for emphasis on my point):
"The card might have been offensive to you, but it seems like she was reaching out to you. Maybe things are really tough on her? I think you are a tad bit overly sensitive when it comes to the comments. The remark about having your hands full doesn't mean the person is insinuating having twins is bad. Most people assume having one new baby is time consuming much less having two. I also think it is silly when those that struggle or have struggled with infertility think they somehow value their children (or will value them) more than the "fertiles". I call BS on that one. By all means with your past struggles I can understand the wounds are still raw and easily opened."
I'm not sure that value is the right word but what about appreciate? Do we as "infertiles" appreciate our children more than "fertiles" who took their ability to procreate as a given?
Does a person who almost loses their spouse to a car accident have an awakening and vow to not take their spouse for granted in the future? Does a child who grew up poor appreciate a scholarship to college more than a privileged student? Does someone who knows what it really is to struggle to achieve something appreciate the prize at the end of the fight more? Does a woman like me who anticipated the fight for many years, experienced loss, and then, after treatments, had her baby appreciate that baby more? Does a woman who went through far more than me appreciate her baby(ies) more? Do we look at our children, our miracle babies as we often call them, and realize what we almost didn't have and appreciate them more?
I'm calling BS on her BS. I respectfully* disagree. I think we do appreciate them more. Does that mean we love them more? No. But we know where we've been, what it cost us (not just monetarily), and how we felt when we imagined our dream might never come true.
I'm certainly not saying we have a monopoly on loving our kids. Nor that we have a monopoly on appreciating them. Just that we appreciate them more. What do you think?
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. And may you all be able to give thanks for your babies, now or in the very near future.
**********************************************************
*What I really want to say is: You're G-d D--n right I appreciate her more!
But I'll be polite and restrain myself. :)
**********************************************************
When I was 19 I was so frustrated by the acne that had plagued me all through my teenage years. Surely it should have been better by then, I thought. I had tried everything available OTC and via infomercials. Everything. I had even tried several prescription drugs (all nightmares). So I went to a dermatologist, again. He examined my skin and asked me if I had regular periods, which I had never had. He told me he thought I had PCOS and that I should check with an OBGYN. When I brought it up at my annual exam, she literally laughed at me but ordered an ultrasound to humor me. Guess what? Cysts all over my ovaries. And a clear imbalance in hormones. HA!
But wait, the joke was on me. I spent a lot of time searching the internet for info. You know, with a dial-up modem and some now-defunct search engine since I hadn't yet heard of Goo.gle. There wasn't a lot out there but I realized one thing - this was going to cause problems when I wanted to have children. The lack of regular periods had always bothered me, but it was always brushed off by the same OBGYN and she told me it would get better with age. Clearly that was not to be. I spent the next ten years wondering if I would ever experience pregnancy, whether I would have children or not. How do you get pregnant when you have two or three periods a year? That can't be good, right? I warned my then-boyfriend, now-hubby, in case he wanted out to find heartier breeding stock. I was lucky, he stayed.
Sometimes it was at the back of my mind. Sometimes at the forefront. Sometimes a doctor during grad school would look at a 26-year old me and say, "What are you waiting for? It will only get harder."
**********************************************************
A fellow blogger, Eileen, who had twins in August recently received a strange "congratulations" card from a family member and wrote about it on her blog. On the outside the card said, "Did you know that in some states you can legally dump your kids at the courthouse?" and on the inside said, "Road trip?". First of all, when is this card ever funny and who on earth would send it by way of congratulating a new mom, especially one who went through several losses and several IVFs as Eileen did. This was a serious "WTF?!?!".
I commented, and so did many other people. Most having the same WTF feelings. One anonymous (of course) commenter said this (boldface added by me for emphasis on my point):
"The card might have been offensive to you, but it seems like she was reaching out to you. Maybe things are really tough on her? I think you are a tad bit overly sensitive when it comes to the comments. The remark about having your hands full doesn't mean the person is insinuating having twins is bad. Most people assume having one new baby is time consuming much less having two. I also think it is silly when those that struggle or have struggled with infertility think they somehow value their children (or will value them) more than the "fertiles". I call BS on that one. By all means with your past struggles I can understand the wounds are still raw and easily opened."
I'm not sure that value is the right word but what about appreciate? Do we as "infertiles" appreciate our children more than "fertiles" who took their ability to procreate as a given?
Does a person who almost loses their spouse to a car accident have an awakening and vow to not take their spouse for granted in the future? Does a child who grew up poor appreciate a scholarship to college more than a privileged student? Does someone who knows what it really is to struggle to achieve something appreciate the prize at the end of the fight more? Does a woman like me who anticipated the fight for many years, experienced loss, and then, after treatments, had her baby appreciate that baby more? Does a woman who went through far more than me appreciate her baby(ies) more? Do we look at our children, our miracle babies as we often call them, and realize what we almost didn't have and appreciate them more?
I'm calling BS on her BS. I respectfully* disagree. I think we do appreciate them more. Does that mean we love them more? No. But we know where we've been, what it cost us (not just monetarily), and how we felt when we imagined our dream might never come true.
I'm certainly not saying we have a monopoly on loving our kids. Nor that we have a monopoly on appreciating them. Just that we appreciate them more. What do you think?
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. And may you all be able to give thanks for your babies, now or in the very near future.
**********************************************************
*What I really want to say is: You're G-d D--n right I appreciate her more!
But I'll be polite and restrain myself. :)
Friday, November 5, 2010
Hair, Hair Everywhere
Have you heard about how your hair falls out after pregnancy? Goodness gracious, my hair is coming out in handfuls! Apparently, your hair kind of rests while you are pregnant so you lose very little compared to normal. Not as many hairs reach the end of their growing cycle. Then once your hormones begin to return to normal, all that hair you should have lost already falls out.
But it's out of control! Mostly I lose it in the shower (my hair, not my mind). Which is really gross. When I lose hair in the shower it gets all stuck on my hands. I don't want it to clog up the drain so I stick it to the wall and (try to remember to) clean it up after my shower. Gross, I know. Am I the only one who does this?!
While that is the bulk of my hair loss I am also finding it EVERYWHERE. Where else is it, you ask? It is on the kitchen counter. It is on my lab bench and my computer keyboard at work. It's all over my clothes. Don't even look at the bathroom floor after I blowdry. It's all tangled up in my poor baby's hands. You may even find it emerging from the business end of my dogs after they do their duties! They must eat it I guess, hopefully unintentionally. Hey, you asked!
My husband hates finding hair around usually so he is extra disgusted right now. What can I do? Nothing, obviously. I just have to wait until it's done. Which led me to use some super rigorous mathy stuff. I calculated (by mostly making it up) that it should take 66.5 days for all the extra to be gone. What's that, you want me to show my work? Well, I don't know I mean I guess I could but umm... OK! The following is very scientifical:
I think I read somewhere that you typically lose about 100 hairs per day*. Let's assume I lost zero per day during pregnancy (to be conservative). Let's not count those two weeks before ovulation so (38 weeks) x (7 days/week) x (100 hairs/day) = 26,600 hairs I need to shed!
I also read that during this shedding phase you can lose about 500 hairs per day*! So that's my normal 100 + 400 extra. So 26,600 divided by 400 = 65.5 days.
I estimate this has been going on almost a month so hopefully just about one more month. Yuck!
Don't worry about baldness. I have always had a very dense covering of hair. Too bad it's very fine hair that refuses to curl and generally just laughs at me when I try to do anything with it. Sigh. But my widow's peak is looking pretty sparse. I'm sure I'm the only one who notices but it's not cute. Now I fully expect that I will have little baby hairs sticking out of it once it all starts growing back. I'll keep you posted because I know you need to know.
*I have no real reference for you here. These are figures I think I may have read somewhere maybe, once upon a time.
But it's out of control! Mostly I lose it in the shower (my hair, not my mind). Which is really gross. When I lose hair in the shower it gets all stuck on my hands. I don't want it to clog up the drain so I stick it to the wall and (try to remember to) clean it up after my shower. Gross, I know. Am I the only one who does this?!
While that is the bulk of my hair loss I am also finding it EVERYWHERE. Where else is it, you ask? It is on the kitchen counter. It is on my lab bench and my computer keyboard at work. It's all over my clothes. Don't even look at the bathroom floor after I blowdry. It's all tangled up in my poor baby's hands. You may even find it emerging from the business end of my dogs after they do their duties! They must eat it I guess, hopefully unintentionally. Hey, you asked!
My husband hates finding hair around usually so he is extra disgusted right now. What can I do? Nothing, obviously. I just have to wait until it's done. Which led me to use some super rigorous mathy stuff. I calculated (by mostly making it up) that it should take 66.5 days for all the extra to be gone. What's that, you want me to show my work? Well, I don't know I mean I guess I could but umm... OK! The following is very scientifical:
I think I read somewhere that you typically lose about 100 hairs per day*. Let's assume I lost zero per day during pregnancy (to be conservative). Let's not count those two weeks before ovulation so (38 weeks) x (7 days/week) x (100 hairs/day) = 26,600 hairs I need to shed!
I also read that during this shedding phase you can lose about 500 hairs per day*! So that's my normal 100 + 400 extra. So 26,600 divided by 400 = 65.5 days.
I estimate this has been going on almost a month so hopefully just about one more month. Yuck!
Don't worry about baldness. I have always had a very dense covering of hair. Too bad it's very fine hair that refuses to curl and generally just laughs at me when I try to do anything with it. Sigh. But my widow's peak is looking pretty sparse. I'm sure I'm the only one who notices but it's not cute. Now I fully expect that I will have little baby hairs sticking out of it once it all starts growing back. I'll keep you posted because I know you need to know.
*I have no real reference for you here. These are figures I think I may have read somewhere maybe, once upon a time.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A Good Anniversary
One year ago yesterday we signed the papers to close on our house, which we love.
One year ago today I saw what I thought was the faintest of faint second pink line. A digital "Pregnant" display later in the day confirmed my dream come true.
That's what you call a good week.
One year ago today I saw what I thought was the faintest of faint second pink line. A digital "Pregnant" display later in the day confirmed my dream come true.
That's what you call a good week.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
An October of Firsts
Oh my garsh! It has been forever since I posted! Not counting certain times in grad school, I think this month may have been the busiest of my entire life! Busy but great. It was an October of firsts. I'll try to bring you through the highlights briefly. (Ok, let's be real, brevity is not my strong suit.)
Baby Girl had her first plane ride! We traveled back to the home land (Minnesota) for a "baby shower", or more accurately, "Welcome Baby Girl party". I was able to show her what a natural body of water looks like. And trees with leaves that change color. It was so completely wonderful to have so many women that I love and hardly ever see in one room and have the chance to introduce them to BG. Although, having the party the day after we arrived in town with a two hour time change was a mistake and she has never been as angry as she was that morning. We had her somewhat calmed down but almost no one could hold her because she morphed into a "momma only" girl that weekend. But people could at least adore her in a hands-off way. :) Also, I got so much stuff that she is now completely set for clothes for probably the next six months. At least. Oh, and she did great on both plane trips, thank goodness. We also got to meet BG's brand new cousin and we learned we will be his godparents! Yay!
Baby Girl had her first successful tummy time ever and then promptly rolled over for the first time a few days later. I thought she would never roll over with the way she very angrily protested every tummy time ever! But finally one day she realized it was not so bad and then soon it was "look what I can do". Mommy and Daddy cheered so loud that she looked SO proud of herself. So cute! Now she is trying to roll from back to tummy so soon she will be able to really go places. Yikes!
She visited me at work for our first lunch date. My coworkers had seen her when she was just two weeks old so they were excited to see her again. Exceeeeept... it was just a couple of days after we got back from the MN trip so she was... off. She screamed at everyone who tried to hold her and so I just had to tell people they couldn't even though they asked. :( She actually had a much more difficult time adjusting to being home than I expected. It was a rough few days.
I also gave baby her first virus, complete with baby's first fever. :( Luckily, it was not a very bad virus even though it stuck around my body for a week and a half. Basically BG slept all the time but cried more than usual when she was awake. She seems to already be over it in a few days so that goes to show how much better it is for you to just rest when you are sick. Too bad someone's vacation and sick hours still have minus signs in front of them. *Sigh*
Obviously Sunday will be Baby's first Halloween. Or first holiday, for that matter. And since my nickname for her is Punkin she will be dressed as a jack-o-lantern (if she agrees) and we will, of course, carve pumpkins! Hubby actually tried to tell me we did not need pumpkins because she would not remember it. Are you kidding me?! So I guess we should just not have a Christmas tree this year either because what is the point? What a Halloween scrooge. Too bad he has no say in this matter. Seriously, who would skip a first holiday of any sort?! Good try. He is not like this about all holidays. Admittedly neither of us is very big on Halloween but any excuse to dress up my baby I will take!
Other happenings this month include Baby's First Friends Over for a Barbecue and seemingly endless errands. And even though it didn't even register at the time, hubby and I had our 11 year anniversary of "being together". Wow, 11 years! I cannot believe we have been together that long and I certainly can't believe it was that long ago that I was in college!
I have definitely been following your blogs and am excited for all the births, pregnancies, and new chances right around the corner that I hope and pray will lead to babies for all my blogging friends. I truly think about you all a lot and pray for all of you in general and many of you by name.
Baby Girl had her first plane ride! We traveled back to the home land (Minnesota) for a "baby shower", or more accurately, "Welcome Baby Girl party". I was able to show her what a natural body of water looks like. And trees with leaves that change color. It was so completely wonderful to have so many women that I love and hardly ever see in one room and have the chance to introduce them to BG. Although, having the party the day after we arrived in town with a two hour time change was a mistake and she has never been as angry as she was that morning. We had her somewhat calmed down but almost no one could hold her because she morphed into a "momma only" girl that weekend. But people could at least adore her in a hands-off way. :) Also, I got so much stuff that she is now completely set for clothes for probably the next six months. At least. Oh, and she did great on both plane trips, thank goodness. We also got to meet BG's brand new cousin and we learned we will be his godparents! Yay!
Baby Girl had her first successful tummy time ever and then promptly rolled over for the first time a few days later. I thought she would never roll over with the way she very angrily protested every tummy time ever! But finally one day she realized it was not so bad and then soon it was "look what I can do". Mommy and Daddy cheered so loud that she looked SO proud of herself. So cute! Now she is trying to roll from back to tummy so soon she will be able to really go places. Yikes!
She visited me at work for our first lunch date. My coworkers had seen her when she was just two weeks old so they were excited to see her again. Exceeeeept... it was just a couple of days after we got back from the MN trip so she was... off. She screamed at everyone who tried to hold her and so I just had to tell people they couldn't even though they asked. :( She actually had a much more difficult time adjusting to being home than I expected. It was a rough few days.
I also gave baby her first virus, complete with baby's first fever. :( Luckily, it was not a very bad virus even though it stuck around my body for a week and a half. Basically BG slept all the time but cried more than usual when she was awake. She seems to already be over it in a few days so that goes to show how much better it is for you to just rest when you are sick. Too bad someone's vacation and sick hours still have minus signs in front of them. *Sigh*
Obviously Sunday will be Baby's first Halloween. Or first holiday, for that matter. And since my nickname for her is Punkin she will be dressed as a jack-o-lantern (if she agrees) and we will, of course, carve pumpkins! Hubby actually tried to tell me we did not need pumpkins because she would not remember it. Are you kidding me?! So I guess we should just not have a Christmas tree this year either because what is the point? What a Halloween scrooge. Too bad he has no say in this matter. Seriously, who would skip a first holiday of any sort?! Good try. He is not like this about all holidays. Admittedly neither of us is very big on Halloween but any excuse to dress up my baby I will take!
Other happenings this month include Baby's First Friends Over for a Barbecue and seemingly endless errands. And even though it didn't even register at the time, hubby and I had our 11 year anniversary of "being together". Wow, 11 years! I cannot believe we have been together that long and I certainly can't believe it was that long ago that I was in college!
I have definitely been following your blogs and am excited for all the births, pregnancies, and new chances right around the corner that I hope and pray will lead to babies for all my blogging friends. I truly think about you all a lot and pray for all of you in general and many of you by name.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
She's All Riled Up Again
I was going to write a post today bitching about the record-breaking, triple digit temps we can't seem to get rid of. But it seems the high today will be 89 so I'm going to have to find something else to bitch about. Luckily, I came prepared! Don't worry, it's not about vaccinations, although that will come up. Stay with me.
Yesterday I received a weekly email from Baby.Center about my baby's development at her age. Included was a link to a story about a onesie that Old Navy is currently selling. You may have heard about it. It has a picture of a bottle (baby bottle) with wings and says "Formula Powered". Now, I'm not even going to get into my opinion of this onesie or its "message". That is not the point of this blog entry. The story on BC asked for opinions on the onesie and of course mentioned that the breastfeeding advocates are up in arms about it, and provided links to some websites.
One of those websites I clicked to was a blog called "Peaceful Parenting". I did not know what I was getting myself into. First, I read the article in question which berated ON for the onesie, which "advocates for destruction". All of the comments called for a boycott of ON, said that formula feeding mothers are literally poisoning their babies, and stated that formula feeding isn't second best, it's fourth in line of options. The second being pumping and feeding breast milk and the third being using milk from another human. Since I did not produce anywhere near an adequate supply (although they would tell me that is my fault and I should have fixed it) options 1 and 2 are out for me. I looked into human milk banks. Do you, or more importantly do the blog author and commenters, have any idea how much human milk costs? Well it is free of course, you just have to pay a $3.50 per ounce handling fee plus shipping. $3.50 per ounce?!?!? That works out to be over $3000 per month! Um, I can't afford that. Can you? And my insurance did not cover a breast pump, let alone human milk. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned that I wouldn't qualify to receive it since Baby Girl was not a preemie and was not immune compromised. Problems with the mother weren't listed as reasons to qualify for the milk. Probably because people don't believe that can truly happen. The mother must be doing something wrong. Anyway, the Stirrup Queen has already touched on the whole "Breast is Best" thing twice this week so I will stop here. You should check out her thought provoking article if you haven't.
But as I (foolishly) delved further into the blog, I found no fewer than a half dozen things I have done/am doing that are causing irreparable harm to my baby. I'll give you some insight and some of their reasoning:
Yesterday I received a weekly email from Baby.Center about my baby's development at her age. Included was a link to a story about a onesie that Old Navy is currently selling. You may have heard about it. It has a picture of a bottle (baby bottle) with wings and says "Formula Powered". Now, I'm not even going to get into my opinion of this onesie or its "message". That is not the point of this blog entry. The story on BC asked for opinions on the onesie and of course mentioned that the breastfeeding advocates are up in arms about it, and provided links to some websites.
One of those websites I clicked to was a blog called "Peaceful Parenting". I did not know what I was getting myself into. First, I read the article in question which berated ON for the onesie, which "advocates for destruction". All of the comments called for a boycott of ON, said that formula feeding mothers are literally poisoning their babies, and stated that formula feeding isn't second best, it's fourth in line of options. The second being pumping and feeding breast milk and the third being using milk from another human. Since I did not produce anywhere near an adequate supply (although they would tell me that is my fault and I should have fixed it) options 1 and 2 are out for me. I looked into human milk banks. Do you, or more importantly do the blog author and commenters, have any idea how much human milk costs? Well it is free of course, you just have to pay a $3.50 per ounce handling fee plus shipping. $3.50 per ounce?!?!? That works out to be over $3000 per month! Um, I can't afford that. Can you? And my insurance did not cover a breast pump, let alone human milk. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned that I wouldn't qualify to receive it since Baby Girl was not a preemie and was not immune compromised. Problems with the mother weren't listed as reasons to qualify for the milk. Probably because people don't believe that can truly happen. The mother must be doing something wrong. Anyway, the Stirrup Queen has already touched on the whole "Breast is Best" thing twice this week so I will stop here. You should check out her thought provoking article if you haven't.
But as I (foolishly) delved further into the blog, I found no fewer than a half dozen things I have done/am doing that are causing irreparable harm to my baby. I'll give you some insight and some of their reasoning:
- Having ultrasounds: The post is entitled, "Ultrasound: Powerful, Dangerous, Unethical". I am sure you can imagine what this one is about. This includes dopplers. Oops, I did that daily until I could feel her move.
- Having an epidural: I have, apparently, drastically altered the way my baby feels pain by having an epidural. The interesting this is I have allegedly increased her pain tolerance but this is a bad thing because someday when she needs morphine it will not work for her. This was all very weakly based on the ideas that birth causes injury naturally, epidurals don't allow you to feel pain and therefore endorphins aren't released after, and an unrelated study in rats.
- Feeding formula: Covered above and you all know the routine.
- Diapering: Diapering, cloth and especially disposable, is bad. "Chemicals" on your child's bum and all.
- Vaccinating: I won't even go there.
- Leaving my baby: My favorite article, written by a male doctor, informed me that I should not leave my baby for the first three years of her life. Not for a week vacation, not a weekend getaway, not overnight, not for a day, not for an afternoon, not for AN HOUR. According to the article your baby needs to know you are there and can't tell the difference between a minute and forever so if you are not there your baby thinks you abandoned them. The article acknowledges that some mothers have to work, and they should not worry if they have to. (Wait, I thought I was damaging my child?) It then goes on to say, though, that if you think about it you really don't have to work, it's just that you're accustomed to the lifestyle that two incomes affords you and really you are choosing that lifestyle over your child's well being. Yep, I'm not making that up. Anyplace you can go your baby should go with or it's not worth going to. If you absolutely want to leave while your baby is sleeping you can, but be aware that Serious Damage will befall her if she wakes up and you are not there. There is a whole separate post about the evils of daycare and preschool.
Yep, Baby Girl is only 2 months old and I have failed her in so many ways it is a wonder she is still alive. Hubby asked me very sincerely to stop reading the blog. And I did. One thing that was so strange to me is they will quote the AAP to enhance their points on some things but then will blatantly disregard what the AAP says about other things, such as vaccinating.
But there are still a couple of other problems with literature like this. First, it expects so much from us as mothers and shames us for not expecting the same from ourselves. The sky is falling if we cannot keep up with all of these things we must do or must not do for our babies. Peaceful parenting my ass, I am anxious just thinking about all of it.
And that is the second problem. Even though I didn't agree with any of it, it planted seeds of self-doubt in my head that I couldn't shake once I went to bed. Yes, I could be cloth diapering or not diapering. Yes, I could stay at home if I moved to a small apartment (my mortgage is half of what I qualified for, so much for my extravagant lifestyle I insist on having). Sure, I could tap into my savings account and spend $3000 per month to provide human milk. Although then I surely would have to work! Anyway, mothers today have enough worry that they aren't doing enough. I don't need someone hammering home that message about every choice I make.
Finally, I respect other peoples opinions. They're like a$$holes after all, everybody has one. I recognize that what I choose to do will not be what works for every parent. I really appreciated Stirrup Queen's article about breastfeeding and totally agreed with it but I do not agree with every post she makes. And when I disagree I can respectfully do so in her comment section. But this blog and its commenters don't allow for any gray area. You either follow their advice and are a good parent, or you do not and are not.
P.S. I wrote a respectful comment to the original onesie article and not surprisingly it hasn't been published alongside all of the ON-bashing, breastfeeding nazi comments.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Exhibit A
This is exactly what I'm talking about. A headline from a story on MSNBC today:
"California whooping cough outbreak may be largest in 55 years. Over 4,000 cases, 9 deaths this year; decline in vaccinations blamed"
As though there was something else to blame.
I was just telling hubby I wonder how many kids will have to die from all these preventable diseases before people wake up. Nine won't register on anyone's radar. People will shrug off 9. But I bet the 9 sets of parents won't. And there was nothing they could have done differently short of keeping their babies in a bubble:
"All of the whooping cough-related deaths in California occurred in babies too young to be fully immunized against the illness, which is why parents and caretakers are being urged to get booster shots."
I know, I keep hammering away at it. It just makes my blood boil that babies are dying unnecessarily.
I'm done now. I've said my piece.
"California whooping cough outbreak may be largest in 55 years. Over 4,000 cases, 9 deaths this year; decline in vaccinations blamed"
As though there was something else to blame.
I was just telling hubby I wonder how many kids will have to die from all these preventable diseases before people wake up. Nine won't register on anyone's radar. People will shrug off 9. But I bet the 9 sets of parents won't. And there was nothing they could have done differently short of keeping their babies in a bubble:
"All of the whooping cough-related deaths in California occurred in babies too young to be fully immunized against the illness, which is why parents and caretakers are being urged to get booster shots."
I know, I keep hammering away at it. It just makes my blood boil that babies are dying unnecessarily.
I'm done now. I've said my piece.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Vaccination Follow Up Info
Hello All,
I am glad that so far I have gotten a positive response to my last post. Like I said, it is something I feel passionate about. I am the kind of person who becomes emotionally involved in the stories I read on others' blogs. So I care about you guys and your little ones! If I can help someone make a rational decision about immunizing their child then I feel good about that. I at least want people to know the facts before they decide. I don't want people basing their decision on what some actress told Oprah about her singular experience.
By the way, did you know that JennyMcCarthy's child likely never had autism after all? And that she now admits that vaccines likely had nothing to do with his situation and that probably explains why he was able to be "cured"? Interesting how this didn't get widespread news coverage, isn't it? I just learned about it yesterday while gathering references for what I wrote!
I also want people to know that I am not telling you that there is no chance vaccines will injure your child. Vaccine injury has and will happen but the chances are FAR, FAR, FAR less than your child acquiring a dangerous, preventable disease if you do not have them vaccinated. There is usually a rare underlying cause that is aggravated by vaccinations, but this condition likely would have been stressed by something else down the road.
Anyway, one of the questions I got in my comments was about spacing out vaccinations a la the DrSears method. As I said yesterday, there is no research or rhyme or reason to the DrSears schedule while there is to the CDC schedule. That being said, I found a great article addressing parents fears about "overwhelming" their child's immune system with too many shots at one time. It is in the journal Pediatrics, which is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I will provide a link below and you can access it for free. I will summarize it here though because there may be a lot of terms that are unfamiliar to people not in this field.
First of all, before a baby is born it has been in a very sterile environment. A newborn has encountered very few if any pathogens. Antibodies are passed from the mother to the baby in utero but that is not the same as the baby's own body creating an immune response. Protection given by the mother will "wear off" within a few months. The same is true for any immune protection gained through breastfeeding. These protections, while helpful, are no where near as good as those the baby can develop itself. But the second a baby is born it is confronted with many pathogens it has obviously never seen before and the immune system immediately begins mounting a response to this. The GI tract of a baby is colonized with bacteria within hours of birth. So even at birth the baby's immune system is challenged with many different types of pathogens at once, just as with a combo immunization.
Second, vaccines today are different than they were in the past. In 1900 children were only immunized against smallpox. But that vaccine contained 200 antigens (proteins that can potentially spur the immune system to get to work). In 1980, when I was born, children were immunized against 7 diseases. Over the course of those immunizations over 3000 antigens were encountered. Today, while children are immunized for 11 diseases, the total antigens encountered over the course of the vaccines is about 125. That is because we are better at making vaccines today and we don't have to include so much "stuff". By "we" I mean the companies that make the vaccines of course, not me or my company.
The authors also estimated the capacity of the immune system. I won't go into the details because it gets all science-y but they predict that if all 11 current vaccines were given at one time only 0.1% of the immune system would be used. But they go on to say that truly, no portion of the immune system is ever "used up" because that system is constantly replenishing the cells and components involved.
Another final point is that if vaccines temporarily compromised your immune system we would expect children to be more prone to other diseases at the time of the shots but that is not the case. Also, children already sick do not have any problem handling vaccines.
Again, I am not a pediatrician and if you have questions you should always consult your pediatrician! But as with my last post, I am presenting the information I have used in making my decisions. I have heard all the same media hype and attention you have all heard so I looked into all of this before vaccinating Baby Girl. I now feel completely comfortable following her doctors recommendations.
There are potential negatives to spacing out vaccines more than the CDC recommends. The most obvious being that you are postponing protection for your baby. The longer you wait, the more time they have to contract that disease. Also, doctors are concerned that parents will not come back or forget to complete the other vaccines. Vaccines are more likely to be not given if the parent has to keep coming back. But I know you ladies are vigilant parents and if you choose that route you will follow through!
I'm not going to lie, Baby Girl was not happy this past weekend after she received her 2-month vaccinations on Saturday. Part is probably attributed to physical pain at the injection sites but part is attributed to her immune system at work. I got my DTP a few weeks ago and that sucker hurt like heck for several days! But she is now happy as a clam again and I feel better knowing she has some protection against some nasty diseases.
One last thing that is TOTALLY my opinion. There is research in this area but it is far from concrete. I personally feel that allergies are also on the rise because of the sterile environments we create today. Everything is wiped down with bleach all the time and everyone washes with antibacterial soap. I believe our immune systems are bored! They will start going after harmless things like our foods if they have nothing else to do. Babies and children need to get sick once in a while to exercise their immune systems! But that is what the common cold is for, not measles or polio. My OB told me not to eat peanut butter while I was pregnant because it could contribute to peanut allergies in the baby. That is totally counter intuitive to how the immune system works! And in fact I found medical articles that said exactly the opposite of what my doctor had told me. In countries where peanuts are introduced earlier there are fewer cases of peanut allergy. Plus, all my nauseous tummy would allow some days was peanut butter sandwiches! But this is just my theory and allergy research is another big area now along with autism research.
Here is a link to that article. If you actually try to read it and have any questions just let me know. Wait, actually I am giving a link to a page on the World Health Organization's website because I can't figure out how to copy/paste a web address here for some reason and this one is much shorter for me to type. The article I talked about is the first link under "Links and References".
www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/immune_overload/en/index.html
I am glad that so far I have gotten a positive response to my last post. Like I said, it is something I feel passionate about. I am the kind of person who becomes emotionally involved in the stories I read on others' blogs. So I care about you guys and your little ones! If I can help someone make a rational decision about immunizing their child then I feel good about that. I at least want people to know the facts before they decide. I don't want people basing their decision on what some actress told Oprah about her singular experience.
By the way, did you know that JennyMcCarthy's child likely never had autism after all? And that she now admits that vaccines likely had nothing to do with his situation and that probably explains why he was able to be "cured"? Interesting how this didn't get widespread news coverage, isn't it? I just learned about it yesterday while gathering references for what I wrote!
I also want people to know that I am not telling you that there is no chance vaccines will injure your child. Vaccine injury has and will happen but the chances are FAR, FAR, FAR less than your child acquiring a dangerous, preventable disease if you do not have them vaccinated. There is usually a rare underlying cause that is aggravated by vaccinations, but this condition likely would have been stressed by something else down the road.
Anyway, one of the questions I got in my comments was about spacing out vaccinations a la the DrSears method. As I said yesterday, there is no research or rhyme or reason to the DrSears schedule while there is to the CDC schedule. That being said, I found a great article addressing parents fears about "overwhelming" their child's immune system with too many shots at one time. It is in the journal Pediatrics, which is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I will provide a link below and you can access it for free. I will summarize it here though because there may be a lot of terms that are unfamiliar to people not in this field.
First of all, before a baby is born it has been in a very sterile environment. A newborn has encountered very few if any pathogens. Antibodies are passed from the mother to the baby in utero but that is not the same as the baby's own body creating an immune response. Protection given by the mother will "wear off" within a few months. The same is true for any immune protection gained through breastfeeding. These protections, while helpful, are no where near as good as those the baby can develop itself. But the second a baby is born it is confronted with many pathogens it has obviously never seen before and the immune system immediately begins mounting a response to this. The GI tract of a baby is colonized with bacteria within hours of birth. So even at birth the baby's immune system is challenged with many different types of pathogens at once, just as with a combo immunization.
Second, vaccines today are different than they were in the past. In 1900 children were only immunized against smallpox. But that vaccine contained 200 antigens (proteins that can potentially spur the immune system to get to work). In 1980, when I was born, children were immunized against 7 diseases. Over the course of those immunizations over 3000 antigens were encountered. Today, while children are immunized for 11 diseases, the total antigens encountered over the course of the vaccines is about 125. That is because we are better at making vaccines today and we don't have to include so much "stuff". By "we" I mean the companies that make the vaccines of course, not me or my company.
The authors also estimated the capacity of the immune system. I won't go into the details because it gets all science-y but they predict that if all 11 current vaccines were given at one time only 0.1% of the immune system would be used. But they go on to say that truly, no portion of the immune system is ever "used up" because that system is constantly replenishing the cells and components involved.
Another final point is that if vaccines temporarily compromised your immune system we would expect children to be more prone to other diseases at the time of the shots but that is not the case. Also, children already sick do not have any problem handling vaccines.
Again, I am not a pediatrician and if you have questions you should always consult your pediatrician! But as with my last post, I am presenting the information I have used in making my decisions. I have heard all the same media hype and attention you have all heard so I looked into all of this before vaccinating Baby Girl. I now feel completely comfortable following her doctors recommendations.
There are potential negatives to spacing out vaccines more than the CDC recommends. The most obvious being that you are postponing protection for your baby. The longer you wait, the more time they have to contract that disease. Also, doctors are concerned that parents will not come back or forget to complete the other vaccines. Vaccines are more likely to be not given if the parent has to keep coming back. But I know you ladies are vigilant parents and if you choose that route you will follow through!
I'm not going to lie, Baby Girl was not happy this past weekend after she received her 2-month vaccinations on Saturday. Part is probably attributed to physical pain at the injection sites but part is attributed to her immune system at work. I got my DTP a few weeks ago and that sucker hurt like heck for several days! But she is now happy as a clam again and I feel better knowing she has some protection against some nasty diseases.
One last thing that is TOTALLY my opinion. There is research in this area but it is far from concrete. I personally feel that allergies are also on the rise because of the sterile environments we create today. Everything is wiped down with bleach all the time and everyone washes with antibacterial soap. I believe our immune systems are bored! They will start going after harmless things like our foods if they have nothing else to do. Babies and children need to get sick once in a while to exercise their immune systems! But that is what the common cold is for, not measles or polio. My OB told me not to eat peanut butter while I was pregnant because it could contribute to peanut allergies in the baby. That is totally counter intuitive to how the immune system works! And in fact I found medical articles that said exactly the opposite of what my doctor had told me. In countries where peanuts are introduced earlier there are fewer cases of peanut allergy. Plus, all my nauseous tummy would allow some days was peanut butter sandwiches! But this is just my theory and allergy research is another big area now along with autism research.
Here is a link to that article. If you actually try to read it and have any questions just let me know. Wait, actually I am giving a link to a page on the World Health Organization's website because I can't figure out how to copy/paste a web address here for some reason and this one is much shorter for me to type. The article I talked about is the first link under "Links and References".
www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/immune_overload/en/index.html
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
My Two Cents
I have been working on writing this post for a while. Making sure I get my facts right so I state them correctly. Also finding credible sources that I can cite (Credible in my opinion. As in, I'm not just quoting wikipedia here folks).
I am a scientist. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a PhD in Analytical Chemistry. Through obtaining my degree and through my experience in my job, I have knowledge in chemistry, biology (admittedly limited), biochemistry, and immunology. I work for a very small biotech company. That means we are like a pharmaceutical company except we do not develop "small molecule" drugs. (Most drugs on the market today are small molecule drugs that the general public may call "chemicals", which is funny because everything is a chemical, including water. If someone calls their product "chemical free" they are apparently selling you nothing.) Instead, our drugs are biologically based, specifically being small pieces of proteins already found in your body. Part of my job is to develop tests that determine whether patients in our clinical trials are having an immune response to our drug, which is part of the safety assessment of the drug.
In any case, this means I have more knowledge in the field of immunology (study of the immune system) than a typical, non-scientist parent. For this reason, I have been asked in the past about my opinions regarding vaccinations. And I do have very strong opinions. This is my blog and this is something I feel passionate about so I wanted to give those opinions. You can take it for what it's worth and make your own decisions regarding vaccinating your child but I will present many facts which informed my own decision. I aim to be clear on what is a fact, what is backed up by scientific study, and what is my personal opinion.
I am a scientist. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a PhD in Analytical Chemistry. Through obtaining my degree and through my experience in my job, I have knowledge in chemistry, biology (admittedly limited), biochemistry, and immunology. I work for a very small biotech company. That means we are like a pharmaceutical company except we do not develop "small molecule" drugs. (Most drugs on the market today are small molecule drugs that the general public may call "chemicals", which is funny because everything is a chemical, including water. If someone calls their product "chemical free" they are apparently selling you nothing.) Instead, our drugs are biologically based, specifically being small pieces of proteins already found in your body. Part of my job is to develop tests that determine whether patients in our clinical trials are having an immune response to our drug, which is part of the safety assessment of the drug.
In any case, this means I have more knowledge in the field of immunology (study of the immune system) than a typical, non-scientist parent. For this reason, I have been asked in the past about my opinions regarding vaccinations. And I do have very strong opinions. This is my blog and this is something I feel passionate about so I wanted to give those opinions. You can take it for what it's worth and make your own decisions regarding vaccinating your child but I will present many facts which informed my own decision. I aim to be clear on what is a fact, what is backed up by scientific study, and what is my personal opinion.
- Fact: It is estimated today that 1 in every 110 children is diagnosed with autism. Data suggest that the rate is increasing by about 10-17% each year, but part of this is due to improved diagnosis. Boys are more likely than girls (three to four times) to be diagnosed with autism.1
- Opinion: The increase in autism is alarming and research to find causal links and treatments is desperately needed.
- Fact: More than a dozen studies have shown that children given thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or MMR vaccines have no higher prevalence of autism than children who are not vaccinated.2
- Fact: The only study to suggest (not prove) a link between vaccinations and autism has been retracted by the journal that published it. This is extremely rare for a scientific journal. The research was shown to be flawed in many ways.3
- Fact: The lead author of that retracted study has a patent for a measles vaccine that would have increased in widespread use had the combo MMR vaccine been discredited. Additionally, his research was funded by lawyers seeking to sue vaccine makers.4 Umm, financial conflict of interest much?
- Fact: The Chief Science Officer for the autism advocacy group "Autism Speaks" encourages parents to have their children vaccinated and believes scientific research has rejected a link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.5
- Fact: People who claim there is a link between vaccines and autism often blame mercury, specifically the preservative thimerosal. MMR vaccines do not, nor have they ever, contained thimerosal. Chickenpox, inactivated polio virus, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal. Some, but not all, flu vaccines do still contain thimerosal.6
- Fact: Thimerosal was taken out of other childhood vaccines in 2001 but rates of autism continue to climb - the opposite of what would be expected had the thimerosal caused autism.6
- Fact: Other vaccines not containing thimerosal have been shown to NOT be linked to higher rates of autism.2
- Opinion: Sound scientific research has again and again shown no link between autism and vaccines. It is time to spend the money finding the real causes and hopefully finding ways to treat children already diagnosed with autism, whether that involves drug, behavioral, dietary, or other therapies.
- Fact: Studies have been done that refute anecdotal evidence given by parents who claim their children were "fine" before being vaccinated and then developed autism as a result of vaccinations. Researchers were shown home videos of children at their first birthday parties, when parents claimed their children were still "fine" or autism-free. Some of the videos were of children later diagnosed as autistic and some videos were of children with continued normal development. Researchers were able to correctly identify which children would eventually be diagnosed with autism based on the behaviors observed in the videos.7 Unfortunately, more obvious signs of autism tend to develop in a time frame coinciding with childhood vaccinations leading parents to blame the vaccines when in fact their children were exhibiting signs earlier which the parents missed. Additionally, it is not uncommon for autistic children to develop skills and then later lose those skills. This is, indeed, an early warning sign of autism.
There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines cause autism, even with the increased numbers of vaccines given today compared to when I was a child. Vaccines save children's lives (fact). There is also no scientific basis for any alternative schedule, including that set forth by Dr.Sears. The Dr.Sears schedule is completely arbitrary whereas the CDC schedule is developed based on research and experience.
When even a relatively small portion of the population decides not to vaccinate their children it puts the rest of us at risk. In order to eradicate diseases, we must rely on "herd immunity". This is because not every person is adequately protected from the disease by the vaccination. But if the vast majority of the population is vaccinated then the disease has no way to circulate and infect those few who were not protected.
The thing that upsets me the most is that from the time my baby was born until she can be immunized she is susceptible to contracting these diseases (in some cases up to a year as with MMR). If the vast majority of the population were vaccinated, as they were when I was a child in the 1980s, this would not be a problem. But now with up to 25% choosing not to vaccinate, many potentially deadly diseases including measles and whooping cough (pertussis) are again circulating. Six children died recently in California (a state high in non-vaccination) from pertussis. This used to be exceedingly rare! So what if my baby or your baby was infected by an unvaccinated child before we were able to vaccinate them? What if my baby or your baby then died from that infection? I am not trying to use scare tactics, this is a reality. Ask the parents of the six infants who died because they were too young to have been immunized. Six children in one year in one state is too many when it is almost totally preventable. MMR vaccines are not given until 1 year of age, meaning my child is at risk from other non-vaccinated children for a whole year. That scares me. My pediatrician feels so strongly about vaccinating that she urges parents who are planning not to vaccinate to find another pediatrician who can go along with that plan with a clear conscience, because she cannot.
In my opinion, trying to avoid a risk factor for autism that isn't real and thereby putting your child and other peoples children at risk by not vaccinating is unwise at best and irresponsible at worst. I am vaccinating my child according to the CDC schedule and I would urge my family and friends to do the same. Know the facts, and the facts do not support delaying or opting out of vaccinations.
I may take heat for this and that is fine. I am not an expert on vaccinations and I am not an expert on autism but I am a concerned parent who did due diligence to educate myself about this topic. I do not have any financial or other interest in stating my case. My company does not make or develop vaccines and in fact does not have any product on the market as of yet. Something is causing the rise in autism diagnoses and the sooner we find the real cause and stop wasting money on something that is already refuted, the better.
Phew, if you made it through this whole post congrats and don't hate me!
1. www.autismspeaks.org/whatisit/index.php
2. www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autismandvaccines.html
3. articles.cnn.com/2010-02-02/health/lancet.retraction.autism_1_andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine-and-autism-general-medical-council?_s=PM:HEALTH
4. www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html
5. pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/14/study-no-increased-autism-risk-from-mercury-based-preservative-in-vaccines/
6. www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Thimerosal/thimerosal_faqs.html
7. Osterling, Julie and Dawson, Geraldine, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1994, 24 (3). (Article entitled Early recognition of children with autism: A study of first birthday home videotapes)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Baby Weight
I missed my blogoversary two weeks ago. I knew it was coming but was too busy to post anything. I was actually planning to post a one year retrospective as a way to end my blog and then quit blogging. Somehow I guess that didn't happen because here I am, for now anyways.
So, on to my weight. I am annoyed with it. The number on the scale is going the wrong way! Yes, I had lost all but 2 pounds of my pregnancy weight. Now I am up 5, so 7 overall. Add that to the (at least) 5 pounds I would have liked to lose before I got pregnant. Realistically, I'd like to lose 10 pounds from right now.
Please don't bitch at me about only having to lose 10 pounds. I know this is by no means a serious problem. But there are several reasons I am frustrated by this.
1) I have always been thin. When I was a kid and teen I was downright skinny. I started high school weighing less than 100 pounds. All my life growing up I heard how skinny I was. All the time. I ate whatever I wanted and never had to worry about it. When society teaches us it's desirable to be thin and you have been your whole life, it's a bit hard to face that you may have to work for it now. (Again, don't yell at me. Thinness has been my only genetic gift. I guarantee you have better skin, nicer hair, straighter teeth, and bigger boobs than me. I'd keep the weight if someone would bump me up a cup size or two.)
2) I bought new clothes to go back to work two weeks ago and now even some of those are too small! Two out of five pairs of pants and at least one shirt. Dammit.
3) I don't believe in eating right and I don't believe in exercise. What I am really trying to say is that I am a junk food addict and I am lazy.
4) I have a very small frame and therefore do not carry extra weight well. If I said how much I weighed some people would probably murder me but I have friends of the same height who weigh more than I do now and look much better. It's also about being toned and muscular, neither of which I am anywhere near.
So now, what to do? As I said, I hate exercise. I find it so boring. Not to mention difficult. :) I like biking but that is kind of out of the question with an infant. My husband would want to come too and I hear it is frowned upon to leave babies home alone. Can you bike with a baby carrier on? That seems dangerous. But I also love to dance so I am thinking maybe one of those dance-type workouts? Have any of you tried those? I'm not talking about those ridiculous Flirty Girl fitness videos. I'm not installing a stripper pole in my living room. But something like Zumba? I would want to get videos because I don't want to get a gym membership. Even that may not work because if I want to buy something my husband will point to my chronically unused Tae.Bo and The.Firm videos. I hate those things.
The good news is that the weather will soon be nice here. It is almost outdoors time of the year here just as that is wrapping up for most of the country. We can go for walks but unless I do that every day for hours (obviously not likely) it will not be enough. Any other suggestions?
So, on to my weight. I am annoyed with it. The number on the scale is going the wrong way! Yes, I had lost all but 2 pounds of my pregnancy weight. Now I am up 5, so 7 overall. Add that to the (at least) 5 pounds I would have liked to lose before I got pregnant. Realistically, I'd like to lose 10 pounds from right now.
Please don't bitch at me about only having to lose 10 pounds. I know this is by no means a serious problem. But there are several reasons I am frustrated by this.
1) I have always been thin. When I was a kid and teen I was downright skinny. I started high school weighing less than 100 pounds. All my life growing up I heard how skinny I was. All the time. I ate whatever I wanted and never had to worry about it. When society teaches us it's desirable to be thin and you have been your whole life, it's a bit hard to face that you may have to work for it now. (Again, don't yell at me. Thinness has been my only genetic gift. I guarantee you have better skin, nicer hair, straighter teeth, and bigger boobs than me. I'd keep the weight if someone would bump me up a cup size or two.)
2) I bought new clothes to go back to work two weeks ago and now even some of those are too small! Two out of five pairs of pants and at least one shirt. Dammit.
3) I don't believe in eating right and I don't believe in exercise. What I am really trying to say is that I am a junk food addict and I am lazy.
4) I have a very small frame and therefore do not carry extra weight well. If I said how much I weighed some people would probably murder me but I have friends of the same height who weigh more than I do now and look much better. It's also about being toned and muscular, neither of which I am anywhere near.
So now, what to do? As I said, I hate exercise. I find it so boring. Not to mention difficult. :) I like biking but that is kind of out of the question with an infant. My husband would want to come too and I hear it is frowned upon to leave babies home alone. Can you bike with a baby carrier on? That seems dangerous. But I also love to dance so I am thinking maybe one of those dance-type workouts? Have any of you tried those? I'm not talking about those ridiculous Flirty Girl fitness videos. I'm not installing a stripper pole in my living room. But something like Zumba? I would want to get videos because I don't want to get a gym membership. Even that may not work because if I want to buy something my husband will point to my chronically unused Tae.Bo and The.Firm videos. I hate those things.
The good news is that the weather will soon be nice here. It is almost outdoors time of the year here just as that is wrapping up for most of the country. We can go for walks but unless I do that every day for hours (obviously not likely) it will not be enough. Any other suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
