I love this analysis. All that articles like this accomplish is encouraging people who might not want kids to have them to improve their brain health. Then they might end up being terrible parents.
The technical analysis of something published in the NY Times is much less interesting to me than an analysis of what the narrative is that they are trying to sell and why. Because much of what the NY Times does is sell narratives to the public. But the message is clear, "Procreate!" Moderate to upper class liberals who read the NY Times are in population decline, along with the rest of the United States. World Bank data puts us at 1.63 births per female.
I think the narrow technical focus of Sensible Medicine sometimes precludes you from commenting on the bigger picture here which is that the United States needs more babies, more people to support and replace its aging boomer population. This has nothing to do with technical details, and everything to do with selling people a story. China is no doubt doing the same thing and propagandizing their citizens into having more children to help their fertility rate recover from earlier restrictions on child rearing, so why shouldn't the United States?
Did the authors did a "before and after" comparison of the brains? Like 7 months before birth then at whatever time(s) they did their after birth brain observation. Or even better, random population, observe the brains. X years later observe again. And only then look up who has kids or not.
This comment is a bit prejudiced , I will admit, but the New York Times, to me, epitomizes the liberal elite mindset.” We are right, you are, unfortunately, in need of our guidance, and we will show you the way“. This is why I decided to train at Emory and turned down the Harvard program to which I was accepted. As I’ve learned over the years, no one has a monopoly on brains or ability.
“Correlation does not prove causation” should be considered a fatal flaw, rather than buried in the last paragraph of discussion under “limitations”. It renders everything that came before it nearly meaningless.
Thanks for the critique. But maybe the NY Times article may have a positive impact on fertility. Small, and without a firm foundation, but maybe some impact.
I can't even get past the headline. There is no such thing as a "dad bod." That implies that dads have their physiques due to bearing children. How come no one ever calls it a mom bod? The babies live in our bodies and we squeeze them out. But of course, men are getting part of the credit for that part of the process.
Paragraph 3 - This paragraph is full of bias. First, maybe it's true for people who choose and plan to have children. There are plenty of people who didn't plan to have children whose families struggle with paying the bills, who might smoke, and don't necessarily get along with others. Have you seen the divorce rate?
I do appreciate this article and the point you are making about this sort of pseudoscience that doesn't deserve anyone's attention. Our bodies are so complex, anytime that I see an article stating that one thing that you do can change your body, I generally don't pay attention.
Dr. Prasad, "Strangely, it appears in the paper of record" Strangely? I would expect nothing less. I think reading NY Times, even if it was click bait, is your final Quixotic thing to overcome! I had first hand knowledge of two things written in the Times and they were both horribly inaccurate. So either they messed up just those two times (and this current article) or they just lie ALL THE TIME. Also, see Russian Collusion articles or anything ever about Covid. I wouldn't trust the P-Cubed Industrial Complex...what's that you ask? Press, Pharma, and Politicians
Because I have listened to you and sensible medicine for so long, I had a good idea of your analysis before I read your explanation. 😁. I take in medical information from all media sources so much differently now. As a retired teacher with a specialty in dyslexia diagnosis and instructional intervention, I am always suspicious of anything implying an effect on brains and intelligence, and also children for that matter.
Gary Schwitzer used to critique papers at MedPageToday; now he's on Substack, so I'm sure he'd accept a paycheck from NYT if they were wise enough to take your advice. One thing that seems missing (haven't looked at the actual paper yet) is any measure of how much time (if any) the fathers spend with their children. That would have the same issues you already pointed out, but without that as a factor, I don't even understand what claim the author is making--that getting someone pregnant is neuroprotective?
i don't know. med page today seems worse at sensationalizing medical happenings as related to a predetermined worldview than the NYT. Although maybe Schwitzer was too critical for them so I have to remain agnostic as to whether he'd be suitable for the 'opening' at the Times.
I love this analysis. All that articles like this accomplish is encouraging people who might not want kids to have them to improve their brain health. Then they might end up being terrible parents.
The technical analysis of something published in the NY Times is much less interesting to me than an analysis of what the narrative is that they are trying to sell and why. Because much of what the NY Times does is sell narratives to the public. But the message is clear, "Procreate!" Moderate to upper class liberals who read the NY Times are in population decline, along with the rest of the United States. World Bank data puts us at 1.63 births per female.
I think the narrow technical focus of Sensible Medicine sometimes precludes you from commenting on the bigger picture here which is that the United States needs more babies, more people to support and replace its aging boomer population. This has nothing to do with technical details, and everything to do with selling people a story. China is no doubt doing the same thing and propagandizing their citizens into having more children to help their fertility rate recover from earlier restrictions on child rearing, so why shouldn't the United States?
Did the authors did a "before and after" comparison of the brains? Like 7 months before birth then at whatever time(s) they did their after birth brain observation. Or even better, random population, observe the brains. X years later observe again. And only then look up who has kids or not.
This comment is a bit prejudiced , I will admit, but the New York Times, to me, epitomizes the liberal elite mindset.” We are right, you are, unfortunately, in need of our guidance, and we will show you the way“. This is why I decided to train at Emory and turned down the Harvard program to which I was accepted. As I’ve learned over the years, no one has a monopoly on brains or ability.
“Correlation does not prove causation” should be considered a fatal flaw, rather than buried in the last paragraph of discussion under “limitations”. It renders everything that came before it nearly meaningless.
Well, since it doesn't appear the NYT has employed fact-checkers for many years, I highly doubt medical experts are gonna make the cut.
Enjoyable as always, Dr. Prasad!
Thanks for the critique. But maybe the NY Times article may have a positive impact on fertility. Small, and without a firm foundation, but maybe some impact.
So good. We joked about this article over breakfast this morning.
Could you PLEASE send this to another paper of record........perhaps they could all learn something!
I can't even get past the headline. There is no such thing as a "dad bod." That implies that dads have their physiques due to bearing children. How come no one ever calls it a mom bod? The babies live in our bodies and we squeeze them out. But of course, men are getting part of the credit for that part of the process.
Paragraph 3 - This paragraph is full of bias. First, maybe it's true for people who choose and plan to have children. There are plenty of people who didn't plan to have children whose families struggle with paying the bills, who might smoke, and don't necessarily get along with others. Have you seen the divorce rate?
I do appreciate this article and the point you are making about this sort of pseudoscience that doesn't deserve anyone's attention. Our bodies are so complex, anytime that I see an article stating that one thing that you do can change your body, I generally don't pay attention.
Dr. Prasad, "Strangely, it appears in the paper of record" Strangely? I would expect nothing less. I think reading NY Times, even if it was click bait, is your final Quixotic thing to overcome! I had first hand knowledge of two things written in the Times and they were both horribly inaccurate. So either they messed up just those two times (and this current article) or they just lie ALL THE TIME. Also, see Russian Collusion articles or anything ever about Covid. I wouldn't trust the P-Cubed Industrial Complex...what's that you ask? Press, Pharma, and Politicians
Because I have listened to you and sensible medicine for so long, I had a good idea of your analysis before I read your explanation. 😁. I take in medical information from all media sources so much differently now. As a retired teacher with a specialty in dyslexia diagnosis and instructional intervention, I am always suspicious of anything implying an effect on brains and intelligence, and also children for that matter.
Besides having kids, there is one more thing you can do to have a healthy brain--avoid getting CARB syndrome: https://carbsyndrome.com
Gary Schwitzer used to critique papers at MedPageToday; now he's on Substack, so I'm sure he'd accept a paycheck from NYT if they were wise enough to take your advice. One thing that seems missing (haven't looked at the actual paper yet) is any measure of how much time (if any) the fathers spend with their children. That would have the same issues you already pointed out, but without that as a factor, I don't even understand what claim the author is making--that getting someone pregnant is neuroprotective?
i don't know. med page today seems worse at sensationalizing medical happenings as related to a predetermined worldview than the NYT. Although maybe Schwitzer was too critical for them so I have to remain agnostic as to whether he'd be suitable for the 'opening' at the Times.
I always wondered where Gary Schwitzer went to! Thanks for the update.