EXCLUSIVE I'm a pediatric nurse... here is the common parenting practice that is extremely harmful to children
A pediatric nurse has revealed the common parenting practice that is actually extremely detrimental to children.
Mother-of-two Mary Catherine, 36, from Louisville, Kentucky, has had over 13 years of experience working with children in the medical field.
Over the course of her lengthy career, she has learned a lot about what's good and bad for kids.
And according to the expert, there's one thing that tons of moms and dads do that she believes is extremely harmful: scheduling kids for a ton of activities at a young age.
While chatting exclusively with the Daily Mail, she explained that parents love to put their kids in art classes or get them involved in sports really early.
But she warned that 'overscheduling' a toddler can 'impact both their physical and emotional health.'
'Young kids, I'm talking prior to elementary school, need unstructured free play every single day,' she stressed.
'This is how they "learn" and develop their mind and bodies. In their free play they learn how to label and express emotions.
'Young children also need rest and downtime. Their bodies are rapidly growing physically and they need the rest (hence why most of this age group still naps daily).'
The pediatric nurse added that being busy all the times often means parents 'miss out' on chances to 'connect' with their kids.
'We are meant to sit down and eat dinner together as a family most nights, not be running from one ball field to another or from work to gymnastics to home just in time to bathe and get in bed,' she continued.
'This is stressful for most kids, and adults, when you slow down to actually think about this impact.'
If you want your child to try out an activity, Mary suggested focusing on one thing at a time so it really gives them a chance to discover whether or not the enjoy the hobby.
And when it comes to sports, she reminded parents that it's meant to be 'fun' and should not be about winning when they're young.
'I also think travel sports (and the intensity that comes with them) should not be allowed until kids are much older, middle school to high school age,' she added.
She encouraged embracing a 'slower-paced life,' and if your child is getting bored at home she suggested getting them involved in household chores as they make them feel important and can even be fun to young kids.
When it comes to sports, she reminded parents that it's meant to be 'fun' and should not be about winning when they're young (stock image)
'Involve [them] in the tasks at home like laundry and cleaning,' she recommended.
'I'm not saying we all have to be homebodies and never schedule events, but having something on the calendar nightly should not be the norm.
'We've created a culture of overstimulation, even us adults, we can't sit down without scrolling our phones.
'The current busy culture tells us it's not okay to rest. We as parents have to learn to rest and slow down too, so we can model that for our kids.'
She also spoke to the Daily Mail about how dangerous 'unsupervised screen time' could be for kids.
'I think using screens to pacify kids' boredom is a huge issue,' she said. 'I constantly see kids scrolling their parents' phones on TikTok or YouTube in my clinic and it pains me.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
CDC nominee Susan Monarez sidesteps questions about disagreements with RFK in Senate hearing
Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump 's pick to lead the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told senators Wednesday that she values vaccines, public health interventions and rigorous scientific evidence, but largely sidestepped questions about widespread cuts to the agency, elimination of programs and whether she disagreed with any of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s actions to date. 'The secretary is doing the important work of leading a complex agency,' Monarez told members of a Senate health committee that will decide whether to advance her nomination. Monarez, 50, is the first nominee for CDC director to require Senate confirmation. She was named acting director in January and the nominee for the post in March after Trump abruptly withdrew his first choice, David Weldon. Monarez is the former director of a federal biomedical research agency and a respected scientist, though she would be the first nonphysician to lead the CDC in decades. Monarez repeatedly said she had not been involved in decisions earlier this year to cut hundreds of staff and eliminate CDC programs, but that she would work to retain the agency's core functions and transition key programs to other parts of the Health and Human Services department. Her answers appeared to frustrate some senators, including Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who said he had no questions about her qualifications. 'I've got questions about your willingness to follow through on your values,' he said. In the two-hour hearing, Monarez was sharply questioned about Kennedy's recent move to fire all 17 members of a crucial committee that evaluates and recommends vaccines, his downplaying of the risks of measles during a nationwide outbreak and staffing cuts to a program that investigates lead poisoning in children. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who is chairman of the committee, sought assurances about the scientific integrity of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which was reconstituted by Kennedy to include vaccine skeptics. 'Someone can speak as a critic, but there should be someone who's reviewing the overwhelming evidence of the safety of vaccines,' Cassidy said. Monarez said she strongly supported public health interventions, including immunizations, saying, 'I think vaccines save lives." 'The ACIP has a very vital role to play,' she added. 'And it must make sure that it is using science and evidence to drive that decision-making.' She vowed to prioritize innovation, 'evidence-based rapid decision-making' and clear communication at the $9.2 billion agency tasked with evaluating vaccines, monitoring diseases and watching for threats to Americans' health. Monarez declined to say whether she had disagreed with any of Kennedy's decisions regarding the agency to date, saying he has 'laid out a very clear vision.' 'I think he has prioritized key public health activities for preventing chronic diseases," she added. If Monarez is confirmed, it would end a stretch of confusion at the Atlanta-based CDC, where, for months, it wasn't clear who was running the agency. The acting director's role was filled in part by Matthew Buzzelli, the CDC's chief of staff who is a lawyer and political appointee with no medical experience. Monarez holds doctorate in microbiology and immunology from the University of Wisconsin, and her postdoctoral training was in microbiology and immunology at Stanford University. At CDC headquarters in Atlanta, employees have said Monarez was rarely heard from between late January and late March, when Trump nominated her. The CDC was created nearly 80 years ago to prevent the spread of malaria in the U.S. Its mission was later expanded, and it gradually became a global leader on infectious and chronic diseases and a go-to source of health information. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Fat jabs are changing the world. It's time to embrace them
At a recent business conference in London (Chatham House rules apply, so I have to keep it vague), an executive from a major American clothes retailer dropped this extraordinary statistic: the average item of women's clothing sold by her company in the US has gone down by a size in the past year. Just one year! The nation that practically invented obesity, and then exported it around the world, is now shrinking so fast that clothing companies can't keep up. Retailers which based their manufacturing orders on 2024 sizes stand to lose millions in unsold stock. I used to think the idea of solving the obesity crisis through drugs was borderline dystopian. It's the modern food system that has made us fat, after all: the sheer abundance of cheap, sugary, mass-produced junk that has flooded the consumer landscape, and which our hungry caveman appetites are predisposed to crave. Shouldn't we be trying to fix the broken system, rather than medicalising its victims? For decades, politicians and food companies have prevaricated, mumbling about personal responsibility and the importance of willpower, while a tidal wave of sickness rolled in. Diet-related disease now costs the UK around £98 billion a year – almost twice the current defence budget – in NHS treatments, lost productivity and welfare costs. Appetite-suppressing drugs seemed, at first, like an admission of defeat: we can't work out how to improve the food system, so you'll just have to inject your way out of it. But now it seems the drugs themselves might be about to fix the system, from the bottom up. Within the space of four years, a fifth of American adults have been prescribed GLP-1 medications. (In the UK, the figure is around one in ten, although we are catching up fast.) This is a long way off market saturation, given that three quarters of Americans are overweight, but enough to create significant changes in consumer behaviour. A study by Cornell University has found that in US households where one person is on GLP-1 drugs, spending on snacks fell by between 6.7 and 11.1 per cent. If that doesn't sound like much, remember, this is the weekly shop for the entire household, not just the person on the jabs. Savoury snacks and sweet baked goods saw the biggest reductions, while spending on yoghurt, fresh meat and fruit and veg ticked upwards. In other words, the profits are on the move. Sales of snacks and ultra-processed foods will keep falling as the drugs become cheaper and more widely available. Within families, this may have unforeseen benefits. Children who grow up eating healthily are likely to maintain good habits into adulthood. It's not impossible, as one economist suggested to me, that this first wave of GLP-1 prescriptions will transform the food landscape so dramatically that our children's generation will no longer need drugs to survive it. Junk food manufacturers have always defended their business model on the grounds that they are merely giving consumers what they want. They may now find themselves at the sharp end of that argument. It turns out that consumers don't actually want to be fat and ill. We have been caught in a toxic feedback loop between our evolved appetites and the profitability of cheap, ultra-processed food. GLP-1 drugs have, for the first time, given us a tool strong enough to jemmy open that trap.
Medical News Today
an hour ago
- Medical News Today
What might your napping habits say about your health?
Sleep quality and duration is closely linked to physical and mental should aim to get 7–9 hours' sleep a night, which can be a challenge, particularly as we get compensate, many people nap during the day, but new research suggests that this may not be beneficial.A study has found a link between daytime napping and increased risk of all-cause mortality in middle-aged and older researchers suggest that napping may be an indicator of underlying health issues, rather than directly causing mortality, although their observational study cannot prove Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend that adults get between 7 and 9 hours of sleep a night to maintain physical and mental sufficient sleep can lower a person's risk of developing a number of health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and people age, getting a good night's sleep can become more difficult, leading to daytime napping to make up for lost night time slumbers. However, a new study in middle-aged and older adults suggests that daytime napping, particularly around the middle of the day, is linked to a higher risk of death from any study, which was presented at Sleep 2025 — the 39th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies (APSS), held in Seattle, WA, between June 8–11 — cannot prove a causative link but suggests that further research is needed into links between daytime napping and abstract of the study is available in Sleep, the journal of the Sleep Research Society, though its full results are yet to be published in a peer-reviewed MacSweeney, MD, CEO and consultant neuroradiologist at Re:Cognition Health, who was not involved in this study, told Medical News Today that:'These findings are significant because they suggest that daytime napping patterns could serve as early markers of declining health or disrupted sleep architecture in older adults. While previous research has focused on nighttime sleep duration and quality, this study expands the scope by identifying the timing, length and variability of naps as potential indicators of all-cause mortality risk. […] the findings underscore the importance of viewing sleep as a 24-hour cycle, where daytime behaviours are just as telling as those during the night.'When and how long you nap is linked to death riskThe study used data from 86,565 participants in the UK Biobank. At the start, participants had a mean age of 63 years, 57% were female, and none had a history of shift participants completed 7 days of actigraphy monitoring — continuous wearing of a wristwatch-like device that tracks activity to monitor sleeping and waking times. The researchers used this data to identify frequency, timing and duration of daytime recorded mean nap duration between 9 am and 7 pm, variability in nap duration for each individual across days, and timing of naps within the 2-hour time windows of 9–11 am, 11 am–1 pm, 1–3 pm, 3–5 pm, and 5–7 adjusting for demographics, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol consumption, comorbidities, nighttime sleep duration, and chronotype, the researchers assessed associations between napping patterns and all-cause mortality during the 8-year nap duration for all participants was 0.40 hours, with a variation in nap length of 0.39 hours for each individual. People took the most naps between 9 and 11 am (34%), with 10% between 11 and 1, 14% between 1 and 3 pm, 19% between 3 and 5 pm, and 22% between 5 and 7 pm. During the 8-year follow-up, 2,950 participants died (3.4% of the total). For those who died, mean survival from the start was 4.19 researchers found that those who died during follow up took longer naps, had more variation in their nap times, and were more likely to nap between 11 am and 3 commented that: 'This study is a reminder that napping is not inherently negative, but changes in napping behaviour, particularly longer and irregular naps, can signal evolving health concerns. It reinforces the need for clinicians to ask about daytime sleep as part of a routine assessment, especially in older adults.''It also opens the door to further research into the neurobiological and physiological changes that may link daytime sleep patterns to mortality, particularly in relation to early-stage dementia, inflammation, or metabolic instability,' she told might napping habits be linked to mortality?Previous research has suggested that short daytime naps may be beneficial to health, potentially lowering systolic blood pressure, but long daytime naps are associated with higher BMI, waist circumference, blood glucose and blood recent study suggests that excessive daytime napping is linked to a higher risk of these, as well as the latest study, are observational, so cannot show a causative Kelley, MD, JD, triple-board-certified in Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery (ENT), Obesity Medicine, and Lifestyle Medicine, and co-founder and CEO of Side Health, who was not involved in the current research, agreed that the study cannot establish explained why there might be an association between daytime naps and higher mortality:'This may be because individuals with higher comorbid conditions are more likely to experience lower energy levels during the day or require naps. Alternatively, naps may be more frequently needed for those who are not getting enough sleep at night, which can lead to an increase in co-morbid conditions. Further research will be necessary to identify stronger associations between sleep and mortality.'MacSweeney agreed, noting that, '[g]iven the observational design of the study, it is more plausible that excessive or irregular napping is a symptom rather than a cause of underlying health conditions.''In this context,' she told us, 'excessive napping likely functions as a clinical red flag rather than a direct contributor to mortality.'7 expert tips to improve nighttime sleepThere are several measures you can take to try and get a better night's sleep, so that you are less likely to need those daytime recommended the following evidence-based strategies:establishing a consistent sleep schedule, even on weekendslimiting caffeine and alcohol, especially in the eveningcreating a calming bedtime routine, free from screens and overstimulationincreasing daytime exposure to natural light to strengthen circadian rhythmsmanaging medical conditions such as pain, heart failure or respiratory issues that may disrupt sleeptreating underlying sleep disorders like sleep apnea or restless legs syndromeexercising regularly, but avoiding vigorous activity close to cautioned that, '[i]f excessive sleepiness persists despite good sleep hygiene, a clinical sleep assessment is recommended.''[The new] study is essential to remind medical workers to ask patients and caretakers about individuals' sleep and their quality of sleep. Establishing good sleep habits may help you maintain healthier, longer sleep.'– Kanwar Kelley, MD, JD
