Saffron

Does anyone know if there is a similar campaign for Lewisham, or how parents and schools from other boroughs can link up and support each other?

https://thebedlambunch.co.uk/

Henry_17 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saff, > It's Sunday and therefore unreasonable to expect > people to read all that. Is the point just that > troughers continue to trough elsewhere when the > carbs are removed from their favourite fizzy > tipple, or is there something more nefarious > whereby sweeteners have harmful physiological > effects which carbs don't? Clinical research suggests the former, while preclinical research suggests the latter. So, it's probably a combination of both. xx

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saffron Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > 'No better', as in--> excessive consumption of > sugar-free (artificially sweetened) drinks is no > > better than excessive consumption of full-sugar > drinks, i.e. they are both associated with > > negative health outcomes. > > Ah, I think this is where we differ. To me that > is like saying 'being hit by a car travelling at > 20mph is no better than being hit by one at 80mph, > as they both result in negative health outcomes'! > I understand that there are ongoing studies into > both artificial sweeteners and sugar and they are > discovering some interesting stuff, but I just > can't equate the two in terms of 'badness'. > > But, really interesting links, though my lack of a > clinical education in the area means I don't > generally get past abstracts in most of the proper > papers. The article in last of your links was > really rather readable, though. I think unfortunately the picture that's starting to emerge is that the knock-on health effects of excessive consumption of either are equally bad, though the mechanisms may be very, very different. But this is not really surprising because excessive consumption of anything is going to end up somewhere bad. (Likewise moderate consumption of either sugar or sugar-substitutes is widely understood to be safe.) In excess consumption of artificially sweetened drinks, clinical research has focused on over-compensatory eating, but preclinical research suggests a wide variety of cellular mechanisms may be affected by artificial sweeteners. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_3-1-2017-16-59-3 I have the terrible suspicion that marketing strategists would like people to think that artificial sweeteners are a better alternative than sugar, to boost their falling sales. I'm not sure about the current UK situation, but globally full-sugar and artificial-sugar drinks are marketed, and regulated differently. So, it's in the interest of companies to create an image that no-calorie drinks are a 'better' alternative, where marketing them as such would be to their advantage. However, the backlash against artificial sweeteners has meant that some companies are now apparently returning to sucrose. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/06/02/both-natural-and-artificial-sweeteners-aim-to-uplift-diet-soda-volumes/#4d9d98b84454 On a slightly tangential note, if you want to avoid fizzy drinks... This cocktail tastes like Coke, but it contains no fizzy drinks. ;-) It's called 'The Pledge'. 1 shot of Benedictine 1 shot of sweet sherry top up with oatmeal stout sprinkle with nutmeg serve chilled Weird, huh? xx

> Just as a side note, it is possible to carbonate > sugars i.e. form sugar-based compounds which have > a carbonate functional group attached. However > this is getting into the deeper realms of organic > chemistry so is merely of academic interest > because carbonated sugars are not an ingredient in > fizzy drinks. Oh fascinating! Does that result in anything edible or just lab-worthy? I love the Forum. :)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saffron Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Research suggests that the diet/sugarfree > versions are no better than the full-sugar > > versions. This may be an effect of artificial > sweeteners and/or carbonation on > > metabolism, and this effect is particularly > noticeable with fizzy drinks. The same > > effect is not noted in diabetics using moderate > amounts of artificial sweeteners > > as part of a healthy diet. > > Source? Can't find anything on this that isn't on > some barmy 'health' site. > > There was a study where they showed that people > who drink diet drinks tend to eat more than people > who drink sugary drinks or water (suspected to be > caused by the sweetener telling the body to expect > calories that never come). But you couldn't lead > to a conclusion that diet/sugarfree versions are > thus 'no better' than the full-sugar versions. Sorry, Loz, it's not like me not to put a citation, but I'm very over-stretched with work at present. :( I'll endeavor to make a short general response, and maybe you can come back with some more specific questions if anything is not clear. :) 'No better', as in--> excessive consumption of sugar-free (artificially sweetened) drinks is no better than excessive consumption of full-sugar drinks, i.e. they are both associated with negative health outcomes. Therefore incentivising the consumption of artificially sweetened drinks over full-sugar drinks by means of a selective tax on full-sugar drinks is not likely to be a wildly successful strategy for tackling obesity and metabolic disease. Not sure what databases or terminology you're using? There is quite a lot of pre-clinical (in vivo and in vitro) and clinical research in this area. With regards to the mechanism you mentioned above there have been numerous studies looking at the effects of sweet-tasting non-caloric drinks. Such drinks appear to interfere with the normal glucose-energy homeostatic response, leading to metabolic 'derangements' (Swithers, Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2013). This area of research is known as 'neurobiology of food reward'. Most (probably all) of the clinical research is correlative, rather than causative. However, the outcomes are no less real. Consumption of artificial sweeteners in low- or no-calorie drinks is associated with a dose-related increase in weight. That is, the more consumed, the more weight gained. Furthermore, interventional research has observed that using a replacement strategy (using artificially sweetened fizzy drinks to replace sugar-sweetened drinks) does not lead to weight loss. However, results can be variable depending on the population studied, for example overweight, morbidly obese, or metabolically compromised, suggesting that a combination of metabolism and personal perception of food reward have a complex interaction. (Yang, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 2010). One of the more recent findings is that artificial sweeteners affect the gut microbiome, causing metabolic disturbances in mice (Suez et al, Nature 2014), although the same link in humans has not yet been confirmed. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/abs/nature13793.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276013000878 http://www.haadi.ir/Upload/Image/2016/09/Orginal/57265ef1_a01d_4526_b45e_bab3d34c2c8b.pdf So, those are just a few examples. For anyone who is interested, it's easy to find more. Use Google Scholar or PubMed with some key words from the articles to find additional papers in this field of research. Hope that helps! xx

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Saffron Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The main sugar in many fizzy drinks in fructose. > > > That's true in the US, but not so in the UK. That's why I wrote 'many', not 'most' or 'all'. In general the main sugars used in [british] soft drinks are sucrose, glucose, and fructose. However, when acids are included (often added as preservatives or flavour enhancers), acids can cause hydrolysis of sucrose to glucose and fructose. In addition, the amount of added sugar in the same brand of drink varies depending on where they're marketed internationally. While high fructose corn syrup may be particularly problematic (though I'm not aware of a scientific consensus either way), the over-consumption of sugar in any form is detrimental to health. xx

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Fizzy drinks in small quantities aren't a problem > but in the sort of quantise that you can get in > places like nandos they set up a craving for more > as your system becomes used to high levels of > carbonated suger > "carbonated sugar"??? To the best of my knowledge carbonated sugar is not a thing. A liquid can be carbonated when gasses are dissolved in it under pressure. Sugar is also dissolved in liquid. The main sugar in many fizzy drinks in fructose. However, the sugar itself is not carbonated. Interestingly though, carbonation may affect how we consume and metabolize sugar.

Research suggests that the diet/sugarfree versions are no better than the full-sugar versions. This may be an effect of artificial sweeteners and/or carbonation on metabolism, and this effect is particularly noticeable with fizzy drinks. The same effect is not noted in diabetics using moderate amounts of artificial sweeteners as part of a healthy diet.

My daughter had her ears pierced at Claires in Lewisham this summer, no problems. There is a tattoo shop in Ladywell. I think they do piercings as well. They're called 21st Century Tattoo. Give them a ring if no luck elsewhere? I have double pierced ears. One set with the gun when I was 5-6yrs, the others I had done with a needle at a piercing shop when I was ~19yrs. For me there was no difference. Both were done by professionals, and I've had no problems with either set. xx

Have a look here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1773006 xx

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no worries REDD, you might also notice that > alcohol (bottles of red, mainly) is a common > currency of the Forum and also a pretty common > topic :-) I once received a very nice bottle of red in a Forum exchange. Then I immediately (sadly!) exchanged it for something else off the Forum, essential at the time. I can't recall what it was, probably baby related. It did make me wonder how many times a bottle can go round the Forum, and perhaps I should have written 'ED Forum' with a score mark on the label! :)

I'm so very sorry to read that Joinery. Do keep up the fight. You deserve answers, and the Trust needs to learn from their mistakes. :( xx

That may in part be an artefacts of just how enormous the equality divide was to start with. In addition, shrinking of the gap hasn't been equal, with a generational gap to the disadvantage of the younger generation actually growing rather than shrinking. :-/

My daughter attended a well run and managed nursery in central London a few years ago. T&Cs were not dissimilar. xx

Ugh, winter birthday parties are tricky! If it were summer, we'd just have parties in the parks!! Little Saff has a January birthday. If it were my daughter, I would likely stick with the invitation we had accepted... but I guess it depends if you know in advance that you have to miss a lot of future rehearsals for family commitments? I would probably try to fill the two empty places, but I would talk directly to the parents, not hand out invitations. That way you can make it clear what the dilemma is. We always had small family birthday parties until my daughter turned six. Then we went for the church hall option (cheap and cheerful), and just invited everyone (whole class, siblings, parents, non-school friends). Hubbie and I both work fulltime, so this actually turned out to be a nice way to catch up with some of the other parents too. The downside is of course, I had to cater it myself, book the entertainer, stuff the party bags, clean up afterwards etc. ...slightly envious of the all-in-one party venues (but then you're often capped by cost or numbers!) Swings-n-roundabouts. I hope your daughter has lovely party, and it doesn't turn out too stressful for you. xx

MarianaTrench Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At 6.5m he doesn't need to feed at night. The > digestive system has matured sufficiently at this > age that it shuts down during sleep (like with > adults - we don't wake up hungry!). This is open to a lot of variation, and as a blanket statement of physiology is less than accurate. Probably each baby should be assessed on his or her individual development and observed needs. An individual's experience of hunger is not solely linked to digestive activity, nor is the desire for food linked only to hunger. The perception of hunger arises from a complex interplay of digestive, endocrine, and neurological functions, all a which show significant interpersonal development and variation throughout our life times. In addition to which, the desire for food is sometimes driven by a need for comfort in both babies and adults. That this is a psychological need, rather than a requirement for nutrients, does not make it any less real (though I am not suggesting you implied as such). The age at which babies no longer require night time feeds is based more on our personal perceptions and experience than is it on actual physiology. And it is also dependent on how scenarios are defined, e.g. what length of time constitutes 'night time'. xx

My daughter is 7 now, but I remember these preschool years being tough. Arranging playdates and finding new 'mummy friends" is a bit like dating all over again! There are lots of playgroups in the area and some very nice parks. I hope you find lovely parents and children for playdates. xx

So, areas with greater deprivation receive more funding. Got it. BUT, that will be coming at the expense of schools that are doing ok, even in the most deprived boroughs? Both Hackney and Tower Hamlets are could lose 1.4% from their 2018/19 budgets? http://schoolsweek.co.uk/national-funding-formula-the-winners-and-losers-by-local-authority-area/ That seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. Britain is not a poor country. Schools are not 'over-funded', surely? Why make cuts at all to such an essential service? Education is an investment in the long-term success of any country, no? I applaud the efforts of educators to support their schools through potential serious funding loss, but I'm saddened that we're even having a conversation where we're discussing such far-reaching cuts to so many schools. xx

Depends on what you mean by issues. It's illegal to take pictures without permission, where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A public pavement is probably excluded from any expectations of privacy under most circumstances. Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On a more serious note, are there not issues about > publishing photographs of someone on a public > forum without their knowledge or consent under > circumstances such as this?

I don't understand if/how the cost of living is being taken into account with these proposed changes to funding? I understand some small, remote schools appear to have relatively higher running costs, but how is the high cost of London living being weighted? These changes would seem abrupt and clumsy. Surely making less drastic changes over a longer time scale would be more prudent?

If the drops are room temp, the cold feeling in the eye can be weird. When our cat had to have eye drops for a serious injury, I would put the bottle in my bra for 5 min prior to use. Body temp is better. Kitty hated the cold drops and would fight them all the way. Warm was at least tolerable. Sounds like there may be some other issues going on with Hubbie. (He's not quitting smoking for a new yrs resolution by any chance? Because that is how Mr Saff acts every time he quits, resulting in swift banishment to the man creche aka the pub. Grrrrr.) Try warming the eye drops in your pocket, then let your daughter drop them on her closed eyelids, or in the inner corner of her closed eye. You can also try letting her drop regular saline drops in your eye. You role play the child, and she plays the adult. Little Saff loves this kind of role play, and it works too! I hope Hubbie replaces the smashed toys and apologises. We all lose our tempers sometimes. The important part is to make amends and aim not to repeat mistakes. xx

If we had space, I would go for two dishwashers: one ultra small capacity for daily use, one large capacity for entertaining. I've had a combo washing machine / dryer. I didn't like it. If we had the space, I would have a tumble dryer because they're great for sterilising towels and removing pet hair. We only have a washer now, and we manage. You can also use a small electric dehumidifier to help laundry dry better.

I'm not sure what's divisive about that...? Lots of people have to go back to work after a baby for many different reasons, and the best childcare option is the one that works for you. Generally speaking, the younger the child (e.g., under ~2yrs), the better it is if he will have one-to-one care because continuity of care is understood to be less stressful than having multiple carers. That is to say, the more people that look after a very young baby or child, the more stressful it can become for him. So a nanny would be ideal from that standpoint. However, a nanny is also very expensive. You could have a nannyshare or childminder to reduce the cost, but if they are sick there are no other employees to take-up the slack. A nursery is generally (not always) cheaper than a nanny, but obviously will not provide the intense one-to-one care that a nanny or childminder could provide, though a nursery with a high staff-to-child ratio would be able to provide good continuity. Plus, if any of the staff are off sick, the nursery will usually be able to cover for them. And in a nursery environment, the staff look out for each other. So if one person is having a difficult day or running late, others can help them. If your nanny is having a difficult day, he/she still needs to turn up to work on time and tough it out. Conversely, if your own baby is sick, a nursery may send them home to recover, so as not to infect the other babies. However, a nanny should be fine to look after a sick baby, within reason. A nanny might also do light housework, depending on how you negotiate the contract, for example, running errands, doing laundry, or cooking an evening meal for you. So, there are pros and cons to every type of care. Maybe speak with a few different childcare providers to get a feel for their services? Best of luck. xx

Yes, it's totally possible to get Scarlet Fever twice in a short period of time. It's not common, but it is possible. Cases of Scarlet Fever have been increasing for several years in a row, though the reason is not known. And it is also possible for adults to get Scarlet Fever, though symptoms sometimes differ somewhat to children. Strep infections, like Scarlet Fever, are not a cause for great worry if treated promptly. Indeed most cases will clear up on their own without antibiotics. However, antibiotics greatly reduce symtpoms and reduce the length of time individuals are contagious, so they also prevent the spread of disease to vulnerable persons. Some people appear to be less sensitive to Scarlet Fever, which conversely suggests others may be more susceptible or sensitive. As long as you see your LO's symptoms improving, I don't think there's excessive cause for concern. Of course, it couldn't hurt to keep an extra careful eye on things. I don't blame you for despairing with the GP service. Waiting all day for a call back is not good. Were you able to get a prescription for your LO in the end? Personally, I've only ever had good interactions with the 111 service, but just as a word of caution, it's not necessarily a doctor on the other end of the line. It may be 'trained adviser' instead. So, always go with your instinct if you think something isn't right when it comes to your child's health. I think it would be worth flagging up the long wait for a call back with an official complaint. I hope your LO is feeling better very soon. xx