1. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    13 Jun '12 01:17
    http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/4993/full

    Interesting research and developments into why it takes babies so long to learn to walk....

    and for the potential benefits of the spinally injured.

    -m. 😉
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    13 Jun '12 11:19
    Originally posted by mikelom
    http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/4993/full

    Interesting research and developments into why it takes babies so long to learn to walk....

    and for the potential benefits of the spinally injured.

    -m. 😉
    Interesting. I have seen many babies go from crawling to walking and had taken babies like they said, supporting them and letting the legs do what they may and it looked to me in they would do a kind of kicking motion with their legs so it seems the researchers must be right.

    Now we have to see what comes of this research.
  3. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    13 Jun '12 21:111 edit
    I fail to see why the amazing question - why do we not walk sooner? - is going to restrict its answer to brain development. The body is also developing and walking entails quite a combination of posture, bone strength, muscle development... Brains don't do the walking. I can say for sure that babies who walk early are a flipping nuisance and the best ones stay where you left them! I suspect in nature as in my family, there would be a firm evolutionary bias against premature walking. The later the better is my experience.

    Everything we do has a correlation with brain function but that is a tautology. Whether the relevant pathways are formed before or after birth has some intrinsic importance but even if the key structures are in place, [which is hardly surprising for something that must have an evolutionary basis] there is bound to be more growth in neural pathways as we develop and especially in the cortex. We already know that our brain continues to develop physically for at least three years after birth. Otherwise it would be too big to allow birth. Massive new pathways are constructed in the years after birth, for example between the cortx and the limbic system.

    Again, we did not need this research to demonstrate that we share so much in common with other species. I do not know who argued that our upright posture implies a unique and different organisation for the walking process but that would be weird. Evolution does not throw up new structures - it modifies existing ones and that very conservatively.

    I find this article decidedly unimpressive and naive. Sorry. I am tired of brain research - flavour of the month - claiming to have invented the wheel. Yes it is exciting stuff but it is not a substitute for all the other countless scientific findings on this and other topics. Some of the stuff in this short article would get up any educated nose on careful reading.
  4. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    14 Jun '12 01:06
    Hum? 🙄

    It's not that bad! 😞

    However, I do believe in later walking. Many parents almost forcibly encourage too early walking, and the kids grow up bow-legged, as their bones weren't ready! I agree on that one.... 😵

    -m.
  5. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Jun '12 11:10
    Originally posted by mikelom
    Hum? 🙄

    It's not that bad! 😞

    However, I do believe in later walking. Many parents almost forcibly encourage too early walking, and the kids grow up bow-legged, as their bones weren't ready! I agree on that one.... 😵

    -m.
    To be consistent, I have to say that it is as bad as that. Mostly it is overblown journalism reporting the scientific finding. However, I hold to my irritation with excessive claims made from brain research. The specific scientific findings are hard to quarrel with and often intrinsically very important but the implications drawn have to be justified as well. They quickly move into the territory of "just-so" story telling.
  6. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    316726
    14 Jun '12 12:56
    I once worked with an extremely odd guy who raised his kid from birth on real food (well processed and blended of course, but meat and veges from day 1. Kid could stand unaided around 4 weeks, walk unsteadily at 6 weeks, and already trying to talk. Not sure what happened after that because I lost the job and the contact.
  7. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    14 Jun '12 23:13
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    I once worked with an extremely odd guy who raised his kid from birth on real food (well processed and blended of course, but meat and veges from day 1. Kid could stand unaided around 4 weeks, walk unsteadily at 6 weeks, and already trying to talk. Not sure what happened after that because I lost the job and the contact.
    Why do I find that anecdote of tales told at work unconvincing?
  8. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    316726
    15 Jun '12 04:421 edit
    It's actually true, the guy was the wacko son of the small business owner, I got the sack from that job after a couple of months and immediately moved interstate, which is why I don't have any further info. The son brought the tot (and his Great Dane) into the office quite regularly and I saw its progress for myself. I wasn't present at the baby's birth because I joined the firm some days after. I suppose they could have faked the baby's history but other staff members who'd been there longer said the stated birth date was correct.

    The rest of the business family - founder couple and their other son - all seemed to be quite normal and nothing out of the ordinary, so I see no particular reason why the child should have been so different. Do you?
  9. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    16 Jun '12 05:24
    That's actually very dangerous, and neglectful.

    A babies stomach and certainly kidneys are not ready for coping with solids until 4 months old, at least. The amount of salt in solids is too much, and new substances attack an unready immune system.

    A baby should also have an 'extrusion reflex' which rejects anything but liquids into the mouth upto about 4 months old too, which this baby seems to have been taught to ignore.

    Gluten is also contained in most solids, and this can be very dangerous for even up to 6 month olds.

    Shame on those parents.. 🙁

    -m.
  10. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    316726
    17 Jun '12 02:42
    Unfortunately there are parents who experiment with their children, and the law isn't very good at protecting the child. I lived for a while in an area where the young mothers lived in terror of "the welfare" taking their kids, while all the time neglecting those kids. Pity you don't need either training or a permit in order to become a parent!
  11. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    18 Jun '12 13:21
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Unfortunately there are parents who experiment with their children, and the law isn't very good at protecting the child. I lived for a while in an area where the young mothers lived in terror of "the welfare" taking their kids, while all the time neglecting those kids. Pity you don't need either training or a permit in order to become a parent!
    I do wonder if that training, and a pass of qualified certificate, will arrive one day in the future??? 😲

    -m.
  12. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    316726
    18 Jun '12 13:54
    I first heard that proposal in the 1950s, nothing's changed. Remember The Little Black Bag?
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    18 Jun '12 20:36
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Unfortunately there are parents who experiment with their children, and the law isn't very good at protecting the child. I lived for a while in an area where the young mothers lived in terror of "the welfare" taking their kids, while all the time neglecting those kids. Pity you don't need either training or a permit in order to become a parent!
    It aught to be a standard and mandatory part of a child's education (for ALL children and not just the girls)
    that they learn not just how children are made but what to do with them once you get them.

    Basic things that are crucial to how well a child performs at school and for the rest of their lives include
    reading stories to your kids, talking to them (a lot) and encouraging questions... The number of words a
    child has been exposed to/said by the time they start school is a stronger indicator of achievement than IQ.

    Of course there's lots of other stuff like nutrition and how to control your kids and importantly, how not to
    have them till you are ready, but a huge difference could be made with some really simple basics being taught
    to everyone about how to raise children.
  14. Wat?
    Joined
    16 Aug '05
    Moves
    76863
    19 Jun '12 08:32
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    It aught to be a standard and mandatory part of a child's education (for ALL children and not just the girls)
    that they learn not just how children are made but what to do with them once you get them.

    Basic things that are crucial to how well a child performs at school and for the rest of their lives include
    reading stories to your kids, talking t ...[text shortened]... be made with some really simple basics being taught
    to everyone about how to raise children.
    A part of Social Studies?

    Makes absolute sense to me.

    -m.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    19 Jun '12 14:06
    The most important thing is simply not having more children than you can afford to look after (either financially or in terms of time and effort). Its amazing how much of a difference to both the parents and the children having fewer children can have. Lower birth rates is one of the best ways to improve the economy, education levels, health etc in third world nations. However its a catch 22 in that you typically have to educate people and get them financially better off before they start having less children (unless you enforce it by law as China has done).
Back to Top