Amazoniac
Member
tara said:Yes.Amazoniac said:Tara, if you don't mind, is the starchevore the firstborn?
I'd say there could be several factors involved.
1. Longer more difficult birth.
2. I think my diet was less adequate while carrying the first.
3. I had an injury that made it harder for me to carry and hold the first as much as I did the second in their first year.
4. My diet while breastfeeding was still fairly low sugar for the first. I had started to eat some, but I was more relaxed about it for the second. The second may have got more nourishing milk.
5. I had more fixed ideas about what was healthy and unhealthy food for them for the first - probably meant he was a bit more undernourished.
6. The first has had more severe knocks to the head. The second has had some too, but I think only the first has had a definite concussion.
7. Their lives have been different - I can't judge which has had more life stresses, since experiences of different conditions can be so individual.
7. Being first may have other stresses of its own, in part due to mother's body being less adapted for it.
I don't intend to limit starch consumption any more than I do at this stage, because first is rake thin and I don't want less food going in.
Have you seen the other thread on Babies know best? I posted that study that Zachs asked, where the children fed at free will..