(Family Features) For moms who breastfeed, the idea of introducing a bottle can feel like a big change. Whether supplementing for personal reasons, returning to work or ensuring adequate nourishment, the transition between breast and bottle can be eased with the right approach – and the right tools. Here’s how to make this process smooth and stress-free for both you and your baby.

Begin Gradually and Mindfully
When supplementing with a bottle, it’s important to start slowly, ideally once breastfeeding is well-established, usually after the first few weeks. Begin by replacing one breastfeeding session with a bottle feeding and gradually increase as needed. This gradual transition helps your baby adapt to the new experience without feeling overwhelmed or confused. If you have questions or concerns about introducing bottle feeding, your pediatrician is an excellent resource.  

Prioritize the Right Bottle Design
Using a bottle that closely mirrors the breastfeeding experience can make all the difference in a smooth transition. For example, NUK’s Perfect Match Bottle, from the No. 1 hospital-trusted brand (based on industry data) for feeding, is specifically designed to bridge the gap between breast and bottle feeding. Its ultra-soft silicone nipple is shaped to mimic the feel of a mother’s breast, adapting to your baby’s unique palate for a familiar, comforting feeding experience. This breast-like comfort can make the transition seamless and intuitive for babies. Additionally, it features an advanced anti-colic venting system that minimizes air intake, reducing digestive discomfort and keeping your baby comfortable for a calm, enjoyable feeding time – without the hassle of extra parts to clean.

Maintain Familiar Feeding Conditions
Convincing a breastfed baby to take a bottle can take a bit of patience. Ease the transition by creating an environment similar to breastfeeding conditions to provide a comforting and familiar experience for your baby. Hold your baby close, make eye contact and create a quiet environment to establish a sense of security. Also, plan for bottle feedings when you know your baby is ready to eat, but not overly hungry or fussy.

Use a Safe and Convenient Feeding System
One common concern when supplementing is ensuring milk is served at a safe temperature. With a built-in SafeTemp indicator that changes color if the milk is too hot, the NUK Perfect Match bottle gives parents peace of mind. This feature can simplify the feeding process, making it more intuitive for busy caregivers.

Enlist Help with Bottle Feeding
Sometimes, a baby may be more likely to accept a bottle when offered by someone other than the breastfeeding parent. A partner or caregiver can introduce bottle feeding, helping your baby adapt without associating it directly with breastfeeding. Once established, you can alternate who offers the bottle.

Stay Flexible and Patient
Every baby’s journey is unique, and patience is key. If challenges arise during supplementation, such as bottle refusal or digestive changes, seek guidance from your pediatrician or a lactation consultant. They can help tailor the approach to your baby’s needs.

Discover the future of feeding and learn more at nuk-usa.com.

Advertisement

SOURCE:
NUK

Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.

Christopher J. Ferguson, Stetson University

Few people would doubt that sex is ubiquitous in media – whether movies, television, music or books – and that teens today have unprecedented access to all of it. It’s often taken for granted that this easy access to “sexy media” has an influence on teenage sexuality.

Specifically, the worry is that teens may have sex earlier or engage in higher-risk sexual activities such as having multiple partners or exposing themselves to potential pregnancies or STDs. In 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics even published a position paper claiming that sexually explicit media could promote risky teen sexual behavior.

But government data find that teens are actually waiting longer than in the past to have sex. And teen pregnancy rates are at historic lows. How is it possible that sexy media has such a pernicious effect even as teen sexuality is becoming healthier?

I’ve spent more than a decade researching how media – like video games or advertising – influences youth behavior. What fascinates me is how society interacts with media, often embracing salacious content while simultaneously blaming it for societal problems, whether real or imagined.

So my colleagues and I decided to look at the research on sexy media and teenage sexual behavior to see how the strong the link between the two is.

Sexy media doesn’t predict sexual behavior

Despite the common assumptions about sex in the media and its alleged effects on teens, the evidence behind the link is weak. Some studies find evidence for a small effect (perhaps in some circumstances but not others), while others find no evidence for any effect.

One reason the evidence may not be conclusive is that there are practical and ethical limitations to conducting research. We can’t run experiments where teens watch different TV shows and we wait around to see who has sex. This means research often relies on self-reported data. What we do is ask teens to report on their sexual behavior and their media preferences, as well as other variables we might like to control for (such as personality or family environment) and see if correlations exist.

Advertisement

With this in mind, my colleagues Patrick Markey at Villanova and Danish researcher Rune Nielsen and I conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies with over 22,000 participants that examine the correlation between sexy media and teenage sexual behavior. A meta-analysis lets us look for commonalities in the results, and is something that had not been done previously with this pool of research.

All of the studies in the meta-analysis looked at depictions of sexual situations, nudity, partial nudity or explicit discussions of sex in television shows or movies easily accessible to minors (and thus excluded pornography).

In particular, we were curious to see whether sexy media predicted teen sexual behavior once other variables had been controlled. For instance, maybe boys tend to watch sexier media and also are more sexually risk-taking. Or perhaps youth who are more liberal in terms of personality are more open both to sexy media and earlier sexual initiation. Perhaps a difficult family background is the underlying key to understanding any correlation between media use habits and actual sexual behavior.

Ultimately, this is what we found. Once other factors such as family environment, personality or even gender were controlled, sexy media exposure did not meaningfully correlate with teen sexual behavior.

Contrary to common fears, sexy media doesn’t seem to have any practical significance for when teens first have sex or start other sexual behaviors. This lack of correlation is a warning sign we might be on the wrong track in trying to blame media for teen sexual risk-taking.

Why doesn’t media influence teens?

There are numerous theories that discuss how individuals and media interact. However, many older media effects theories didn’t consider why people were drawn to media, how they processed it, or what they hoped to get from it. Such theories assumed viewers simply irrationally and purposelessly imitated what they saw. Most of the papers we examined in our meta-analysis were tests of these basic, automatic, media effects theories.

In the past few years, some scholars (myself included) have specifically called for the retirement of these older media effects theories. This is because the evidence increasingly suggests that fictional media such as feature movies or sitcoms media is too remote to have a clear impact on consumers’ behavior, especially compared to families and peers.

In addition, emerging evidence suggests that young children process fictional media differently from real events. If small children are able to process a difference between fictional events and real events, we can assume that teens don’t really expect media to reflect reality.

Advertisement

Our results regarding the limited impact of media also fit with the observations from societal data. Despite a plethora of sexual media available to teens, a crisis of risky teen sexual behavior has not emerged.

We watch what we’re interested in watching

Newer models of media use suggest that it is the individuals who consume media, not the media itself, who are the driving agents of behavior. Evidence suggests that users seek out and interpret media according to what they want to get from it, rather than passively imitating it.

People don’t generally accidentally watch media, sexual or otherwise, but are motivated to do so because of preexisting desires.

For instance, some recent studies have indicated that youth seek out media that fit with preexisting motives, called a selection effect, but that media don’t necessarily lead to further problem behaviors. For example, research suggests that some teens who are already aggressive might be interested in violent video games, but playing such games doesn’t make kids more aggressive.

That’s a point that sometimes seems ignored when we talk about teens and sex. Interest in sex is a largely biologically motivated process; fictional media really isn’t required. Teens will become interested in sex all on their own.

Parents have more influence than the media

Parents can rest a bit easier since the evidence suggests that media isn’t a primary driver of teen sexuality.

To the extent media has any impact at all, it is likely only in a vacuum left by adults reluctant to talk to kids about sex, especially the stuff kids really want to know.

Advertisement

How do you ask someone out on a date and how do you handle it if they say no? What does sex feel like? When is it OK to have sex? What are the risks and how do you avoid them? In the face of patient, empathic and informative discussions about sex by adults kids trust, the media likely has little influence.

Ultimately, whether media have salacious or more conscientious portrayals of sexuality, we should not expect media to replace conversations with youth by parents, guardians and educators.

I’m not suggesting everyone run out and buy “50 Shades of Grey” for their teen, but if teens happen to come across it (and they will), it’s not the end of the world.

The important thing for parents is to talk to their kids.

Christopher J. Ferguson, Associate Professor of Psychology, Stetson University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.

Stephen Lind, University of Southern California

It’s hard to imagine a holiday season without “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” The 1965 broadcast has become a staple – etched into traditions across generations like decorating the tree or sipping hot cocoa.

But this beloved TV special almost didn’t make it to air. CBS executives thought the 25-minute program was too slow, too serious and too different from the upbeat spectacles they imagined audiences wanted. A cartoon about a depressed kid seeking psychiatric advice? No laugh track? Humble, lo-fi animation? And was that a Bible verse? It seemed destined to fail – if not scrapped outright.

And yet, against all the odds, it became a classic. The program turned “Peanuts” from a popular comic strip into a multimedia empire – not because it was flashy or followed the rules, but because it was sincere.

As a business professor who has studied the “Peanuts” franchise, I see “A Charlie Brown Christmas” as a fascinating historical moment. It’s the true story of an unassuming comic strip character who crossed over into television and managed to voice hefty, thought-provoking ideas – without getting booted off the air.

Call from the blue

The “Peanuts” special came together out of a last-minute scramble. Somewhat out of the blue, producer Lee Mendelson got a call from advertising agency McCann-Erickson: Coca-Cola wanted to sponsor an animated Christmas special.

Mendelson had previously failed to convince the agency to sponsor a “Peanuts” documentary. This time, though, he assured McCann-Erickson that the characters would be a perfect fit.

Mendelson called up “Peanuts” comic strip creator Charles “Sparky” Schulz and told him he had just sold “A Charlie Brown Christmas” – and they would have mere months to write, animate and bring the special to air.

Advertisement

Schulz, Mendelson and animator Bill Melendez worked fast to piece together a storyline. The cartoonist wanted to tell a story that cut through the glitz of holiday commercialism and brought the focus back to something deeper.

While Snoopy tries to win a Christmas lights contest, and Lucy names herself “Christmas queen” in the neighborhood play, a forlorn Charlie Brown searches for “the real meaning of Christmas.” He makes his way to the local lot of aluminum trees, a fad at the time. But he’s drawn to the one real tree – a humble, scraggly little thing – inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale “The Fir Tree.”

Jazz – and the Bible

Those plot points would likely delight the network, but other choices Schulz made were proving controversial.

The show would use real children’s voices instead of adult actors’, giving the characters an authentic, simple charm. And Schulz refused to add a laugh track, a standard in animated TV at the time. He wanted the sincerity of the story to stand on its own, without artificial prompts for laughter.

Meanwhile, Mendelson brought in jazz musician Vince Guaraldi to compose a sophisticated soundtrack. The music was unlike anything typically heard in animated programming, blending provocative depth with the innocence of childhood. https://open.spotify.com/embed/album/2XnNY3GEkbWHor5kyvXLu4?utm_source=generator

Most alarming to the executives was Schulz’s insistence on including the heart of the Nativity story in arguably the special’s most pivotal scene.

When Charlie Brown joyfully returns to his friends with the spindly little tree, the rest of the “Peanuts” gang ridicule his choice. “I guess I really don’t know what Christmas is all about,” the utterly defeated Charlie Brown sighs.

Gently but confidently, Linus assures him, “I can tell you what Christmas is all about.” Calling for “Lights, please,” he quietly walks to the center of the stage.

Advertisement

In the stillness, Linus recites the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 2, with its story of an angel appearing to trembling shepherds:

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KXmGLJ0S1Bs?wmode=transparent&start=0 Leave it to Linus to deliver the ‘true meaning’ of Christmas.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,” he concludes, picking up his security blanket and walking into the wings. The rest of the gang soon concludes Charlie Brown’s scrawny tree isn’t so bad, after all – it just “needs a little love.”

When Schulz discussed this idea with Mendelson and Melendez, they were hesitant. For much of U.S. history, Protestant Christianity was the default in American culture, but in the years since World War II, society had grown somewhat more mindful of making room for Catholic and Jewish Americans. Unsure how to handle the shifting norms, many mainstream entertainment companies in the 1960s tended to avoid religious topics.

“The Bible thing scares us,” CBS executives said when they saw the proofs of the special. But there was simply no time to redo the entire dramatic arc of the special, and pulling it was not an option, given that advertisements had already run.

Fun and philosophy

Fortunately for the “Peanuts” franchise, when the special aired on Dec. 9, 1965, it was an instant success. Nearly half of American households tuned in, and the program won both an Emmy and a Peabody Award. Schulz had tapped into something audiences were craving: an honest, heartfelt message that cut through the commercialism.

Advertisement

Millions of viewers have continued to tune in to the show’s annual rebroadcast for over 50 years on CBS and then ABC – and now Apple TV+.

When I was researching my spiritual biography of Schulz, “A Charlie Brown Religion,” one of my favorite finds was a 1965 letter from a Florida viewer, Betty Knorr. She praised the show for stressing “the true meaning of the Christmas season” at a time when “the mention of God in general (is) being hush hushed.”

The magic of Schulz’s work, though, is that it resonates across demographics and ideologies. Some fans find comfort in the show’s gentle message of faith, while others embrace it in a purely secular way.

Simple but poignant, Schulz’s art and gentle humor can do two things. They can act as safe entry points for some pretty hefty thoughts – be they psychiatric, cultural or theological. Or “Peanuts” cartoons can simply be heartwarming, festive entertainment, if that’s what you want.

Today, both the “Peanuts” empire and the Christmas industry are thriving. Back in the 1960s, commercial realities almost derailed Schulz’s special, yet those same forces ultimately ensured its broadcast. The result is a lasting touchstone of innocence, hope and belief.

Stephen Lind, Associate Professor of Clinical Business Communication, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Looking for an entertainment experience that transcends the ordinary? Look no further than STM Daily News Blog’s vibrant Entertainment section. Immerse yourself in the captivating world of indie films, streaming and podcasts, movie reviews, music, expos, venues, and theme and amusement parks. Discover hidden cinematic gems, binge-worthy series and addictive podcasts, gain insights into the latest releases with our movie reviews, explore the latest trends in music, dive into the vibrant atmosphere of expos, and embark on thrilling adventures in breathtaking venues and theme parks. Join us at STM Entertainment and let your entertainment journey begin! https://stmdailynews.com/category/entertainment/

and let your entertainment journey begin!

Please leave this field empty

Want more stories
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.