Author of Expecting Better tackles Early Childhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, this new book says that breastfeeding does have some benefits, but not as much as the breastfeeding militants claim. Also that sleep training is probably a net positive for the family. And that both working and staying at home has benefits and drawbacks.
I feel like this article just shut down 80% of dcum flame wars.

Absolutely, because it's unambiguously and inarguably true. QED, haterz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Among the other problems I have with this (and I am extremely data- and research-driven myself) is that so many readers will come to the same conclusion that this NYT commenter did: "This article supports what has long been my general philosophy when it comes to my own kids: nothing really matters as long as I love and interact with them. Thanks for confirming!"

Saying X is 37% better than Y but sometimes harder to achieve because of Z does not equal "nothing really matters [but love]!" I definitely want people to know things like "so far we only see a small but significant benefit" instead of "IT'S SO AMAZING YOU MUST DO IT OR YOU ARE LITERALLY SATAN." I want them to understand things like "we don't have enough data yet" means that "WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT IF YOU DO X YOUR CHILD WILL BE A SUPERHARVARDGENIUS" is baloney. But those things *still mean* that there is a benefit to the first thing and we don't know *either way* about the second thing. They don't mean "eh, whatever, it doesn't really matter." I understand that is a backlash to the ridiculous expectations placed on mothers (much moreso than parents generally) to get everything "right." But it's not any more true.

You didn't read the article. She's not talking about a proven very small benefit, she's saying that for a lot of this stuff it's correlation vs causation.

[Anonymous]

I preordered this on Amazon month’s ago. I loved Expecting Better. I love having my preconceptions challenged. Expecting Better made me comfortable drinking one unit/week in the second and third trimesters and one coffee/day. I have EBFed my first two kids through a year at considerable annoyance (pumping 3x/day for more than 9 months). I haven’t ever sleep trained. Maybe this will change my perspective via-a-vis my third; it will at least give me something to think about.

[Anonymous]

I have been eating sushi with abandon during this pregnancy, having read her first book before my son was born. For that alone, it was worth a read.

As for breastfeeding, it's good to have the evidence that formula basically poses no harm (and in some contexts is preferable). But there's still something about mixing industrially processed powder with water from plastic bottles that makes me think nursing has some advantages, so if I'm able to, I'll do it again this time (but won't stress much if I can't).

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else find Oster to be insufferably smug? I read her book and found it somewhat informative but her tone irritated me a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi Emily, I don't believe in getting health advice from an economist. Your advice about prenatal drinking was wrong.

And Emily’s argument about WHY drinking is ok (“the fetus is only a ball of cells so who cares”) is pseudoscientific BS.

Most of the book is good - where she reviews medical data and says some stuff about it. All she really did however was get to the same opinions the medical societies did, just a few years earlier.

But she should stay away from any biology arguments.

[Anonymous]

Love Emily. She just discusses everything and you’re able to come to your own conclusion. That’s why I always recommend her. The next parent could decide to swear off coffee while I go for a cup a day, and both conclusions make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi Emily, I don't believe in getting health advice from an economist. Your advice about prenatal drinking was wrong.

And Emily’s argument about WHY drinking is ok (“the fetus is only a ball of cells so who cares”) is pseudoscientific BS.

Most of the book is good - where she reviews medical data and says some stuff about it. All she really did however was get to the same opinions the medical societies did, just a few years earlier.

But she should stay away from any biology arguments.

This is hilarious. Do you actually think the author of this book is trolling DCUM to try to drum up readers?

[Anonymous]

Alcohol during pregnancy is not a good thing for the developing baby.

Why would it be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol during pregnancy is not a good thing for the developing baby.

Why would it be?

It’s like people don’t understand the point of the book. You are convinced any amount of alcohol is harmful to the fetus, even though the author clearly shows that there is no evidence to back up that assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alcohol during pregnancy is not a good thing for the developing baby.

Why would it be?

It’s like people don’t understand the point of the book. You are convinced any amount of alcohol is harmful to the fetus, even though the author clearly shows that there is no evidence to back up that assertion.

She never argues that alcohol is GOOD for the baby. Just that there’s no evidence that small amounts of alcohol (not binge drinking) is harmful. The book is about weighing risks and making your own decisions.

For example, I’m sure caffeine isn’t good for the baby, but small amounts seem to pose no risk. Caffeine is very good for me and me succeeding in my job, so I drink it during pregnancy even though there’s no evidence it’s GOOD for the baby.

[Anonymous]

She also has an article in Slate on vaginal tearing: https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/04/emily-oster-vaginal-tearing-childbirth-pregnancy-common.html