LondonMix

.

The temporary changes to Charing X service is a pain. For getting to Waterloo I?ll either go ELL to Canada Water and then switch to the jubilee line (should be 25 min give or take ) or train to Elephant and then Bakerloo line to Charing X when I need to get to that part of town which is about the same once you take into account all the waiting time and walking around. I agree that Demark Hill losing service to London Bridge is probably a bigger deal than a reduction in Victoria service particularly the loss of the direct connection between Kings and Guys.

James, this is a real issue for our family and I have to disagree with your comment on travel to Whitehall and most of that part of London. Depending on exactly which building you are going to, taking the ELL to Canada Water and going to Westminster via the Jubilee line or going to London Bridge and then on to Charing Cross should be faster than going via Victoria. In fact, depending on the time of day, my husband will typically take the train to Elephant and then a bus from there as the quickest route into that part of town (he has flexible start times like most civil servants). Pimlico and Victoria itself are the only areas where you are really better off going in via Victoria and there will still be trains to Victoria, just less of them. Anyone who actually commutes via Victoria knows that diverting traffic away is a must. Despite the supposedly short journey between Victoria and Pimlico / Westminster the crowding means at best you have to let the first tube train go by in the rush hour and at worst they will shut the tube entrance for a while to prevent dangerous overcrowding. My husband when he does opt for the Victoria route takes a bus to avoid the mayhem. Anyhow, I don?t think that anyone knows what the full impact will be until it?s up and running and people start exploring their options. While you argue that employees from Whitehall will be less interested in living here, more creative / media / tech employees based in East London (who already appear to makeup a portion of the local population) will be more attracted. Focusing only on the negative is counterproductive. All things being equal, we would be better off with both the SLL (or proposed Bellingham service) and the ELLX. If we have to choose, I think it?s too soon to say that getting the ELLX and losing the SLL is a net loss for the area. Given the push for more residential development in the area, we should continue to advocate for improvement to our transport infrastructure as South London becomes more densely occupied. Still, I think as good citizens we have to be honest and weigh things up fairly.

Couldn't have put it better myself Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Although I accept that we all have our political > leanings, I tend to steer clear of people who > froth, rabidly at the mouth at the mention of any > particular mainstream newspaper - polarised and > entrenched views don't normally allow for > balanced and informed conversations.

Everyone assumes that the majority of people travelling to Victoria end their journey there. Victoria is normally just the first entry point to central London followed by transfer to bus or tube. My husband was bemoaning the loss of the SLL for ELLX as he currently travels via Victoria when he doesn't cycle to get to Milbank area. However, once we looked at it, the new ELLX will open up two alternative routes that are shorter / equal timing. For those who really think they will be massively put out, I suggest you rethink your route (including thinking about travelling to other tube stops near your final destination that aren't on the Victoria line) and remembering the interchange with the Jubilee line, and the District line the ELL will provide as well as the interchange with the WLL at Clapham Junction. People like my husband won?t use the Victoria train anymore so hopefully enough people will benefit as he will from the new route options so that the remaining service to Victoria has sufficient capacity for those for whom that really is the best option. The remaining Victoria service is the longer trains (SLL trains were short) so hopefully the math will work out from a capacity perspective. Only time will tell regarding people?s travel patterns but I think it could be a net benefit. The Victoria service was really only half our given the way the service was spread and there are lots of new travel options to East and West London.

Couldn?t agree more with Fuschia on this one. I think it?s worse when you are the first of your friends / family as the gap between what childbirth is and what you imagined it to be can be huge.

That's rediculous. Just look on rightmove's house sales figures. There you can see what actual houses have sold for by post code or by street with the original listing information including pictures and floorplates.

Wow, how very tragic. If anyone knows them and feels the community in anyway can help support them at this time, please do let us know-- even if its simply help with childcare.

2nd what Pickle and Minkey said :) Everyone (including adults) sometimes need to remember there is inside behaviour and outside behaviour!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The risk is that opinion gets > polarised and/or people get into a state of > denial. DaveR, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. Not sure I understand your last point though. Why do you think this would happen?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Personally I can't for the life of me understand > why people take their kids to the pub. I can't > relax in the pub when my kids are there, and > frankly, the chance to go to the pub these days is > a blessed chance to rid myself of them for a > couple of hours! Well that's the point really. People who try and relax (as if kiddies weren't actually with them) when they do go to the pub are the ones that irritate us all!

I want to clear something up based on the last few posts that have been written. Older studies were terrible but most studies now do control for socio-economic factors these days so it?s not just the simple correlation that?s being reported when you here about studies. It is possible to neutralize the influence of socio-economics as a contributing factor within statistical analysis even in observational studies (this is called controlling for a confounding variables- not being patronizing but for those less familiar who want to read the linked studies I am just clarifying some of the jargon). What has not been controlled for is overall parenting style which some of you have suggested and which most scientists agree plays a role. There is evidence that breast feeding parents (regardless of background) are preoccupied with the same issues and therefore may adopt a specific parenting style that is responsible for many of the purported benefits of breast feeding- for example greater concern about health issues are found amongst underprivileged breast feeding mothers than is typical of underprivileged mothers on the whole. The reason why parenting style and other more qualitative behavior are almost impossible to control for in non-randomized trials is due to self-selection bias. In any study there will always be some underprivileged women who are breast feeding and some privileged women who aren?t so it?s possible in large studies to effectively neutralize the impact of various socioeconomic factors. However, to control for a parenting style associated with a desire to breast feed you would have to force some women who want to formula feed to breastfeed and visaversa so you could assess the impact a parenting style associated with a desire to breastfeed might have. Not only is creating this kind of study practically impossible but it is also considered by many unethical. Therefore the impact of parenting and other subtle variables (until recently) has been impossible to assess / neutralize due to lack of randomization between the breast feeding and formula feeding groups. A study by Der et al in 2006 tried to control for parenting style by looking at sibling pairs in which one was breastfed and the other was not. In that study after controlling for maternal IQ there appeared to be no IQ advantage to breast feeding. http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7575/945 However, very cleverly, Kramer was able to construct the only randomized study of breastfeeding ever done (PROBIT) which has yielded very interesting results published in different articles. Kramer was able to randomize the trial by only including women who before giving birth said they wanted to breast feed. The intention or desire to breast feed itself (and all that might be implied from it) no longer was a confounding factor. The study randomly split circa 17,000 women into two groups, one which received counseling, encouragement and additional breastfeeding support and one which didn?t and served as the control group. The group receiving the support to breastfeed, managed to breast feed for significantly longer and more exclusively than the other group and one can assume that the additional breastfeeding was only the result of the intervention rather than a predisposition to breastfeed that might be associated with other behaviors. Interestingly, the only statistically significant health benefit that the study could definitively find was reduced gastrointestinal illness (13% vs. 9%) and a reduced incidence of eczema (3.3% and 6.3%). However, this measures the impact of longer and more exclusive breast feeding rather than strictly comparing formula feeding to breast feeding since even in the control group there was some (though far less) breast feeding occurring. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=193490 There was also a difference in cognitive development (6 IQ points) and both the control and intervention groups had similar socio-economic profiles. There are always limitations to the design of a study but, to quote from the study, the fact that ?no beneficial treatment effects were observed for other outcomes (eg, blood pressure and skinfold thicknesses, allergies and asthma,18 dental caries, or child behavior ) suggests that there was no bias between the randomized groups.? The differential in total IQ was only statically significant for the verbal reasoning sub-tests. While the two randomized groups had very similar profiles (maternal age, education of mother, number of older siblings in the home, smoking parents, and birth weight and sex of babies) maternal IQ was not measured. Given the large number of participants and the other similarities between the randomized groups one would assume most important factors would also be evenly distributed. http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=482695#yoa70091t1 However, the study was not based on current formulas and Belarus at the time suffered from nutritional deficits that might make the results less applicable to breast fed children in more economically developed areas being fed with modern fortified formulas (trial was in the late 90s before omega supplemented formulas but as they followed the children for years, the results were only published in the last few years). The evidence that it is something in breast milk like fatty acids vs. the act of breast feeding (ie more physical and social interaction) that is responsible for the cognitive advantage is very mixed (different studies have produced very different results so it is still considered a gray area). The PROBIT studies by Kramer really are the gold standard for scientific research due to its size and that it is randomized. The ideal would be a double-blind randomized study but that is entirely impossible in breastfeeding research (someone always knows if they have breastfed their child!). IQ was partially assessed by people who were not aware if the children had been breastfed as part of an audit so the results are fairly robust. Kramer himself has worked for both UNICEF and the WHO on the promotion of breast feeding which means it is difficult for anyone to challenge his research as being biased for formula companies. The fact that his research refuted many earlier claimed health benefits to my view illustrates its genuine neutrality. Edited to add: The PROBIT Study also found a very slight reduction in risk regarding SIDs and respiratory illness in the breast feeding intervention group but the results were not statistically significant. This would also suggest that previous studies that found a correlation were picking up more on a parenting style (preoccupation with health leading to more hand washing or having baby sleep in your room) rather than any actual protection conferred by breast milk. I hope this helps!

There was a thread in the Family Room about The Garden?s Caf? that explored the ?pram issue? in detail. We agreed at times when making decisions about what is best, some parents don?t weigh up how their choice impacts others which is what leads to the accusation of entitlement (whether its prams that can?t easily be folded on the bus or prams that are too large in restaurants etc). I don?t think anyone has suggested that parents with kids need to stay home. In the US babies and children are often out with their parents and I have memories from a very early age of going out to nice dinners with my parents and their friends. One of the issues which Nanny highlighted so eloquently is behavior. It really isn?t acceptable to let children run wild in a restaurant and crying babies should be taken out of the dining area and soothed. In my personal experience, most parents around here do exactly that. For young children that often involves bringing things along to entertain them and continually interacting with them. A few bad apples seem so engaged in their adult conversations that they are virtually ignoring their children which is when the worst behavior issues seem to arise. If you are doing everything you can and your children simply won?t behave in a restaurant I think Nanny is simply suggesting that your children might be unhappy in the setting for a host of reasons and if that?s the case, perhaps it?s unfair to both the kids and other punters to force them to stay.

Sounds familiar. I (like a lot of women) have struggled with food and body image issues- I still do but much less so. One phase of this took the shape of an obsession with being "healthy". This might not be the case for her but I would continue to avoid having your kids spend time around her during meal times. Even if its more benign I'm always nervous of the impact any kind of food obsession will have on little ones.

The Fosters ones don't bother me nearly as much. Can't say why though. Perhaps its what Loz says. I think the Malibu ads are terrible though!

There are studies illustrating that MSG is safe. If she's American it will be a battle though as there is a widespread view that it makes you feel ill in the US. If she's aware of the studies there is nothing you can do. Some people believe things as a matter of faith (akin to religious belief) and you can't change their minds!

I don't like it because it reinforces the image of mother as happy slave for the family. I think a situation that unbalanced in real life is increasingly rare which is why its so striking. H- you are not alone. My husband does the majority of the housework as well (in part because he cares more than I do / has a lower tolerance for mess).

Duchess if that question is for me then no, not chocolate milk. When I was in high school I spent a summer living with a host family in Spain. For school age kids (including primary age) it was totally normal to have a slice of cake (including chocolate cake) or a pastry with chocolate or chocolate biscuits. Always very small portions though.

Lochie, everyone with a picky eater does this. And really pick eaters will go without eating anything the whole day (trust me I know) so it's not just being a soft touch!

I tend to think of myself as a pretty healthy eater but upon reflection the first thing I ate this morning was a few pink marshmallows :/

Very sexist indeed. Especially the part at the end where the full and contented husband asks his wife just coming to settle in with the rest of the family after clearing up "what's for tea love?" Her glowing satisfaction at seeing everyone else enjoying themselves (and having to sit on cushion for dinner)! Outrageous. The media lead the way at reshaping attitudes and cultural images. Would have been just as effective showing two parents sharing the burden.

Hmm, in general I am with you on this one, particularly the pack of crisps and sugary drink part if it was a recurring thing. Breakfast is tougher though. While I wouldn't do it, a lot of my friends are Southern European and a slice of chocolate cake for breakfast is totally normal there and the kids seem fine! It's weird but I would probably be more concerned if an English or American was doing it rather than people from other countries as breakfast habits vary so much culturally.

Not once people read about the stabbing Otta. I wouldn't live in Clapaham and my friends who did live there in the early to mid-twenties all wanted to leave rather than being priced out. Its fine if you like that kind of thing or during a specific stage of life but I don't really think you can compare it to Dulwich. I also hate the tube. My neighbours just moved here from Clapaham and say their commute is shorter now as they would have to let at least 2 trains go before they could get on one in the morning on the Northern line during the rush hour. Hopefully increasing house prices won't lead to lots of houses being converted to flats as our existing transport infrastructure would really suffer.

Saffron, I agree and I support international bodies' efforts particularly in encouraging breast feeding in parts of the world where access to clean water and a nutrient-rich diet are still limited. The evidence linking the antibodies in breast milk to a reduction in infection (particularly gastrointestinal infection) during the period of breast feeding is strong and means that even with what we know now, breast-milk has benefits over all formulas. However, more nuance is needed when discussing the risks and benefits in countries where issues such as clean water etc don't exist and relative and absolute benefits need to be contextualised as they are not well understood. We should be clear about what is known and not known rather than being ideologically lead to assume that because breast milk is natural many benefits are to be discovered- after all the love of science and modernity that lead previous generations to believe unproven things about formula can work both ways. I personally think its patronizing to women to think they can't understand the nuance involved with the issues and the oversimplification of the issue does a huge disservice to all parents.

Also in answer to your question Ellie78, yes formula is now available with both DHA and AA fatty acids. The DHA comes from the fish oil in formulas so that's the first thing to look out for. The addition of these fatty acids to formula appears to be associated with higher cognition compared to non-supplemented formulas in some studies though not all. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117763/ Ellie78 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks Saffron - interestingly, it looks from this > that genetics determine whether breast feeding has > an impact on IQ or not, not that there's a uniform > benefit...the study also referred to bfing's > advantage only over cows milk and 'non > supplemented' formulas - so do some formulas > contain DHA/AA or whatever those fatty acids were? > > (incidentally, read it yourself - don't take my > word - no bloody study has highlighted the > negative impact of having a baby and sleep > deprivation on the MOTHER'S IQ or their command of > grammar - typical...) > > ANYWAY - I agree 100% with pretty much everyone > else. Some mothers and babies will benefit from > bfing, but some won't, in which case, hurray that > we have such brilliant formulas around these days. > I don't think 'breast is best' adequately > describes this reality. And 'breastapo' did make > me laugh - it can feel like that. A friend of mine > was berated by a health visitor in a bfing cafe > for topping up her twins with formula. THAT'S > breastapo. > > The whole 'natural' argument annoys me too - when > has bfing ever truly been 'natural', un-civilised, > un-socialised?