Is there a right way to talk to your baby? A baby brain expert explains ‘parentese’
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
You might have seen those heartwarming and often funny viral videos where parents or carers engage in long “talks” with young babies about this and that – usually just fun chit chat of no great consequence.
They’re often very sweet, and it’s lovely to see the babies’ faces lighting up at the sound of their mother or carer’s voice, or seeming to talk back. In one, the baby appears to reply in an accent strikingly similar to their carer’s:
So, what’s going on when we chat like this to babies? And is it better to chat to them in the tone and pace we’d use when talking to other adults, or is it OK to talk in a slower, higher pitched, sing-song voice?
Here’s what the research shows so far.
Talking to your baby matters
When you speak with your baby, they are exposed to a rich tapestry of sounds and movements. Can babies make sense of all this input?
Well, by the time they’re born babies are already highly experienced with their mother’s voice as well as other language sounds they’ve heard while in utero.
In fact, research shows newborns prefer listening to the language they heard in utero rather than an unfamiliar language.
They also prefer to hear the story their mother read aloud regularly in the final weeks of pregnancy, compared to a different story – regardless of who is reading it.
So, although newborns are yet to understand the meaning of these words, they are already tuned in to the importance of language.
Given the vast exposure that most young babies have with their parent’s voice, passively listening to mum or dad talking is likely to be comforting.
Time spent together in close physical contact with a highly familiar person producing familiar sounds creates a safe, secure space rich in learning opportunities.
Babies can learn a lot about conversational style from just listening to and watching the way their parent communicates.
In fact, babies mimic their parents’ gestures, which can help build their vocabulary over time. The social context influences language skills.
What if I run out of things to say?
If you’re not a fan of monologuing to your baby, don’t worry. They’re not missing out.
In fact, constant exposure to long monologues by a parent is unlikely to provide the baby with a particularly supportive language environment for developing their understanding or production of words.
Adult language is extremely complex. It takes a lot of experience with language before a string of sounds like “Yourdadlikeschocolatemoltenlavacake” can be interpreted as individual words linked to people, objects, or concepts.
One of the most effective ways to support early word recognition and promote attention to the structure of language is for the adult to use a simplified way of speaking to the baby.
“Parentese” is characterised by the use of higher pitch sounds, elongated vowels, and a slower pace of speaking. Real words are presented in a sing-song, happy voice.
Parentese draws the baby’s attention to words, and highlights how information in speech chunks together. Babies have been found to prefer to listen to this style of speaking compared to standard speech.
Speaking ‘parentese’
Parentese is not the same thing as “baby talk”. Baby talk involves the use of nonsense words, and the modelling of incorrect speech sounds and grammar. A baby is not being supported to learn the word “water” if they are repeatedly presented with a nonsense label like “waa waa” for their drink.
One US study found that when parents were trained to use parentese with their infants at six and ten months, the infants showed an increase in babbling and said more words at 14 months, compared to infants of parents who did not receive this training.
Other research has shown consistent use of parentese in the early years can help build the complexity of children’s language skills at five years of age.
Learning to talk is not simply the product of hearing lots of words. In the first weeks of life, infants are already beginning to produce coos and murmurs that both parents and outside observers judge to be intentional vocalisations.
Try responding to these sounds by imitating them and then interpreting what your baby might be trying to say. This enables them to take a turn as a social partner in the conservation.
When even very young babies take turns in conversations with an adult, the quality of their vocalisations increases.
At the youngest ages, time spent talking together in face-to-face interactions best supports language development.
With age, babies become increasingly interested in the objects in their environment.
So, what should I do?
An effective way to boost language learning from about nine months of age is to notice what’s captured your baby’s attention and talk about that.
Try labelling and describing what your baby is looking at, playing with, pointing at, or babbling towards.
Research by colleagues and I found encouraging parents to engage in 15 minutes of this kind of talk a day with their 11-month-olds for a month was effective in promoting vocabulary growth at 15 and 18 months.
Overall, a rich language environment is created by engaging with your baby in a wide range of activities – via games, songs, and reading aloud – not just having focused conversations.
Jane Herbert, Associate Professor in Developmental Psychology, University of Wollongong
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
The Problem With Sweeteners
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The WHO’s view on sugar-free sweeteners
The WHO has released a report offering guidance regards the use of sugar-free sweeteners as part of a weight-loss effort.
In a nutshell, the guidance is: don’t
- Here’s the report itself: Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline
- Here’s the WHO’s own press release about it: WHO advises not to use non-sugar sweeteners for weight control in newly released guideline
- And it was based on this huge systematic review: Health effects of the use of non-sugar sweeteners: a systematic review and meta-analysis
They make for interesting reading, so if you don’t have time now, you might want to just quickly open and bookmark them for later!
Some salient bits and pieces:
Besides that some sweeteners can cause gastro-intestinal problems, a big problem is desensitization:
Because many sugar substitutes are many times (in some cases, hundreds of times) sweeter than sugar, this leads to other sweet foods tasting more bland, causing people to crave sweeter and sweeter foods for the same satisfaction level.
You can imagine how that’s not a spiral that’s good for the health!
The WHO recommendation applies to artificial and naturally-occurring non-sugar sweeteners, including:
- Acesulfame K
- Advantame
- Aspartame
- Cyclamates
- Neotame
- Saccharin
- Stevia
Sucralose and erythritol, by the way, technically are sugars, just not “that kind of sugar” so they didn’t make the list of non-sugar sweeteners.
That said, a recent study did find that erythritol was linked to a higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and early death, so it may not be an amazing sweetener either:
Read: The artificial sweetener erythritol and cardiovascular event risk
Want to know a good way of staying healthy in the context of sweeteners?
Just get used to using less. Your taste buds will adapt, and you’ll get just as much pleasure as before, from progressively less sweetening agent.
Share This Post
-
Change Your Diet, Change Your Mind – by Dr. Georgia Ede
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dr. Ede begins by explaining that most current nutritional guidelines are wrong. As for how this wrong scientific consensus came about, she blames science’s reliance on randomized controlled trials, interventional studies, and observational/epidemiological studies, which leaves only case studies, which modern science doesn’t care for, and neither does she. She also does not trust systematic meta-analysis reviews, which look at large amounts of data collected in RCTs, interventional studies, and observational/epidemiological studies.
You may be wondering: if she dismisses systematic reviews, RCTs, interventional studies, observational/epidemiological studies, and case studies, what’s left to rely upon? Hasn’t she now thrown out the entirety of scientific method, up to peer review (which, by the way, she also dislikes)?
And the answer is: yes, yes she has. She bids us instead look at knowledge of things like the brain’s anatomy, physiology, etc, and thus work out what diet will be best, based directly on that. This “consider and decide” method, which predates scientific method, was extensively employed by Aristotle (to come to such conclusions as “the brain’s chief purpose is to cool the blood”), but has not been considered good epistemology for a very long time.
So, what does she recommend, in terms of diet? Her recommendations are threefold, inviting the reader to choose:
- Paleo (10almonds note: fine in the short term; long term health risks)
- Keto (10almonds note: usually good in the short term; long term health risks)
- Carnivore (10almonds note: bad in the short term; there is no long term because you will either revert to including some at least some non-animal foods, or you will die)
She also recommends to avoid superfoods (including fruit) and supplements, as well as whole grains and legumes.
The style of the book is very confident. Superficially, it’s well-referenced despite the author’s criticism of scientific method, but upon looking up the references in question for some of the more counter-consensus claims, the ones we checked didn’t actually show the thing she was citing them for.
Bottom line: if you’d like to adjust your diet to improve your mental health, many people do find such benefits on the keto diet in the short term (but still, watch out for the long-term heart health issues). If you’d like to improve your brain health in the long-term, this is not the book for that.
Click here to check out Change Your Diet, Change Your Mind, and see what we mean!
Share This Post
-
Are plant-based burgers really bad for your heart? Here’s what’s behind the scary headlines
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
We’re hearing a lot about ultra-processed foods and the health effects of eating too many. And we know plant-based foods are popular for health or other reasons.
So it’s not surprising new research out this week including the health effects of ultra-processed, plant-based foods is going to attract global attention.
And the headlines can be scary if that research and the publicity surrounding it suggests eating these foods increases your risk of heart disease, stroke or dying early.
Here’s how some media outlets interpreted the research. The Daily Mail ran with:
Vegan fake meats are linked to increase in heart deaths, study suggests: Experts say plant-based diets can boost health – but NOT if they are ultra-processed
The New York Post’s headline was:
Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease, early death: study
But when we look at the study itself, it seems the media coverage has focused on a tiny aspect of the research, and is misleading.
So does eating supermarket plant-based burgers and other plant-based, ultra-processed foods really put you at greater risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death?
Here’s what prompted the research and what the study actually found.
Nina Firsova/Shutterstock Remind me, what are ultra-processed foods?
Ultra-processed foods undergo processing and reformulation with additives to enhance flavour, shelf-life and appeal. These include everything from packet macaroni cheese and pork sausages, to supermarket pastries and plant-based mince.
There is now strong and extensive evidence showing ultra-processed foods are linked with an increased risk of many physical and mental chronic health conditions.
Although researchers question which foods should be counted as ultra-processed, or if all of them are linked to poorer health, the consensus is that, generally, we should be eating less of them.
We also know plant-based diets are popular. These are linked with a reduced risk of chronic health conditions such as heart disease and stroke, cancer and diabetes. And supermarkets are stocking more plant-based, ultra-processed food options.
How about the new study?
The study looked for any health differences between eating plant-based, ultra-processed foods compared to eating non-plant based, ultra-processed foods. The researchers focused on the risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease and stroke) and deaths from it.
Plant-based, ultra-processed foods in this study included mass-produced packaged bread, pastries, buns, cakes, biscuits, cereals and meat alternatives (fake meats). Ultra-processed foods that were not plant-based included milk-based drinks and desserts, sausages, nuggets and other reconstituted meat products.
The researchers used data from the UK Biobank. This is a large biomedical database that contains de-identified genetic, lifestyle (diet and exercise) and health information and biological samples from half a million UK participants. This databank allows researchers to determine links between this data and a wide range of diseases, including heart disease and stroke.
They used data from nearly 127,000 people who provided details of their diet between 2009 and 2012. The researchers linked this to their hospital records and death records. On average, the researchers followed each participant’s diet and health for nine years.
Plant-based, ultra-processed foods included in this study included packaged supermarket bread. doublelee/Shutterstock What did the study find?
With every 10% increase of total energy from plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods there was an associated 5% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke) and a 12% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
But for every 10% increase in plant-sourced, non-ultra-processed foods consumed there was an associated 7% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 13% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
The researchers found no evidence for an association between all plant-sourced foods (whether or not they were ultra-processed) and either an increased or decreased risk of cardiovascular disease or dying from it.
This was an observational study, where people recalled their diet using questionnaires. When coupled with other data, this can only tell us if someone’s diet is associated with a particular risk of a health outcome. So we cannot say that, in this case, the ultra-processed foods caused the heart disease and deaths from it.
Why has media coverage focused on fake meats?
Much of the media coverage has focused on the apparent health risks associated with eating fake meats, such as sausages, burgers, nuggets and even steaks.
These are considered ultra-processed foods. They are made by deconstructing whole plant foods such as pea, soy, wheat protein, nuts and mushrooms, and extracting the protein. They are then reformulated with additives to make the products look, taste and feel like traditional red and white meats.
However this was only one type of plant-based, ultra-processed food analysed in this study. This only accounted for an average 0.2% of the dietary energy intake of all the participants.
Compare this to bread, pastries, buns, cakes and biscuits, which are other types of plant-based, ultra-processed foods. These accounted for 20.7% of total energy intake in the study.
This image was at the top of the media release. Screenshot/Imperial It’s hard to say why the media focused on fake meat. But there is one clue in the media release issued to promote the research.
Although the media release did not mention the words “fake meat”, an image of plant-based burgers, sausages and meat balls or rissoles featured prominently.
The introduction of the study itself also mentions plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods, such as sausages, nuggets and burgers.
So it’s no wonder people can be confused.
Does this mean fake meats are fine?
Not necessarily. This study analysed the total intake of plant-based, ultra-processed foods, which included fake meats, albeit a very small proportion of people’s diets.
From this study alone we cannot tell if there would be a different outcome if someone ate large amounts of fake meats.
In fact, a recent review of fake meats found there was not enough evidence to determine their impact on health.
We also need more recent data to reflect current eating patterns of fake meats. This study used dietary data collected from 2009 to 2012, and fake meats have become more popular since.
What if I really like fake meat?
We have known for a while that ultra-processed foods can harm our health. This study tells us that regardless if an ultra-processed food is plant-based or not, it may still be harmful.
We know fake meat can contain large amounts of saturated fats (from coconut or palm oil), salt and sugar.
So like other ultra-processed foods, they should be eaten infrequently. The Australian Dietary Guidelines currently recommends people should only consume foods like this sometimes and in small amounts.
Are some fake meats healthier than others?
Check the labels and nutrition information panels. Look for those lowest in fat and salt. Burgers and sausages that are a “pressed cake” of minced ingredients such as nuts, beans and vegetables will be preferable to reformulated products that look identical to meat.
You can also eat whole plant-based protein foods such as legumes. These include beans, lentils, chickpeas and soy beans. As well as being high in protein and fibre, they also provide essential nutrients such as iron and zinc. Using spices and mushrooms alongside these in your recipes can replicate some of the umami taste associated with meat.
Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
-
Chia Seeds vs Flax Seeds – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing chia to flax, we picked the chia.
Why?
Both are great! And it’s certainly close. Both are good sources of protein, fiber, and healthy fats.
Flax seeds contain a little more fat (but it is healthy fat), while chia seeds contain a little more fiber.
They’re both good sources of vitamins and minerals, but chia seeds contain more. In particular, chia seeds have about twice as much calcium and selenium, and notably more iron and phosphorous—though flax seeds do have more potassium.
Of course the perfect solution is to enjoy both, but since for the purpose of this exercise we have to pick one, we’d say chia comes out on top—even if flax is not far behind.
Enjoy!
Learn more
For more on these, check out:
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Natto vs Tofu – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing nattō to tofu, we picked the nattō.
Why?
In other words, in the comparison of fermented soy to fermented soy, we picked the fermented soy. But the relevant difference here is that nattō is fermented whole soybeans, while tofu is fermented soy milk of which the coagulated curds are then compressed into a block—meaning that the nattō is the one that has “more food per food”.
Looking at the macros, it’s therefore no surprise that nattō has a lot more fiber to go with its higher carb count; it also has slightly more protein. You may be wondering what tofu has more of, and the answer is: water.
In terms of vitamins, nattō has more of vitamins B2, B4, B6, C, E, K, and choline, while tofu has more of vitamins A, B3, and B9. So, a 7:3 win for nattō, even before considering that that vitamin C content of nattō is 65x more than what tofu has.
When it comes to minerals, nattō has more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and zinc, while tofu has more calcium, phosphorus, and selenium. So, a 6:3 win for nattō, and yes, the margins of difference are comparable (being 2–3x more for most of these minerals).
In short, both of these foods are great, but nattō is better.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
21% Stronger Bones in a Year at 62? Yes, It’s Possible (No Calcium Supplements Needed!)
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Live Life in Crescendo – by Stephen Covey and Cynthia Covey-Haller
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Stephen Covey is of course best known for his “7 Habits of Highly Effective People“, while the dozen books he wrote afterwards, not including this one, did not get the same acclaim.
Not including this one, because this one was published posthumously and, notwithstanding the order of the names on the cover, in all likelihood his daughter wrote most of.
And yet! The very spirit of this book is in defiance of 7 Habits being his “early career” magnum opus. We say “early career”, because he was 57 already when that was published, but it was one of his earlier books.
In this work the authors lay out the case for how “your most important work is always ahead of you“, and that it is perfectly possible to “live life in crescendo“, and keep on giving whatever it is that we want to give to the world.
We also learn, mostly through storytelling, of how people are infinitely more important than things, and that it is there that we should put our investments. And that while adversity may not make us stronger, it just means we may need to change our approach, to continue to be productive in whatever way is meaningful to us.
Bottom line: if ever you wonder how your future could live up to your past (in a good way), this is the book to get you thinking.
Click here to check out Live Life in Crescendo, and figure out what your next great work will be!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
