Newsletter

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 16 Issue 2 – School Food

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

School Based Nutrition – Why is it happening this way?

There is a quiet experiment happening in American childhood, and we should stop pretending it’s benign.

In the 1970s and 1980s, when I attended school, school food was far from perfect, but it existed in the context of something essential: it was mostly prepared on site, minimally processed (but changing in that direction) and not laden with additives and chemicals (Yet). Oh, and most children still ate meals prepared at home at almost every other occasion. Dinner wasn’t aspirational or Instagram-worthy, but it was routine. Real food. Cooked by someone who knew the child, at a table where nervous systems could downshift. School lunch was a supplement to that structure, not the metabolic foundation of a child’s life. That has all changed in a short 50 years. Mirroring the change in weight and childhood disease prevalence.

• 1970s – some processed foods begin to enter school cafeterias at scale
• 1980s – preservatives and additives become routine
• 1990s – ultra-processed foods dominate

In 1994, new standards were added: This table lays out how much of each food group schools were supposed to offer over a week under the 1994 standards. These were the first nutrition-focused meal standards the USDA put into place:

For Breakfast (all grades K–12):
Fruit: 2.5 cups/week
Vegetables: 0 cups/week
Grains/Bread: 0–10 oz equivalent/week (depending on combinations of grains and protein)
Meat/Meat-alternative: 0–10 oz equivalent/week
Milk: 5 cups/week

For Lunch (split by grade levels):
Fruit: K–3 also 2.5 cups; grades 4–12 get 3.75 cups/week
Vegetables: still 0 cups/week (no separate vegetable requirement yet)
Grains/Bread: at least 8 oz eq/week
Meat/Meat-alternative: 7.5 oz eq/week for breakfast; 10 oz eq/week for lunch
Milk: 5 cups/week

(Hopkins 2015)

What’s notable, reflected in the structure of this table, is that vegetables weren’t required at all yet, and the standards were very much food-group based, not ingredient-level nutrient quality checks. That created space for schools to rely on industrially produced entrées and sides that technically met volumes of grains or proteins but could still be ultra-processed products with long ingredient lists, many of these foods would meet a NOVA class 4 classification (the worst type). Think fruit cup in sugary syrup…..

Dr. M

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 16 Issue 1 – Beyond Behaviors Part 3, Mona Delahooke, PhD

Screenshot

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

Chapter 3 – Individual Differences

Dr. Delahooke starts Chapter 3 by allowing Margaret Mead to remind us that each child is absolutely unique: “Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.” This is more than a witty paradox, it is the hinge upon which all effective pediatric care swings. When we take individual differences seriously as neurobiological fact, we can finally stop confusing adaptive survival responses with defiance, stop labeling children as problems, and begin the real work of supporting the mind body systems that shape behavior from the inside out.

Let us review what we have learned in Beyond Behaviors so far – We are invited to descend below the waterline of the behavioral iceberg. What we see at the surface: the tantrum, withdrawal, rigidity, hyperactivity, the refusal to transition is merely a set of observable outputs from deeply personal internal variables. The sensory wiring, physiological states, immune triggers, thoughts, feelings, memories, and the child’s moment-to-moment sense of safety. Without diving into these subterranean layers, we risk treating smoke while ignoring the fire, which is the general state of current pediatric psychiatric medical therapeutics. We mostly treat the smoke. We don’t often ask about the fire. Her central thesis is simple, clinically robust, and profoundly humane:

Children behave according to the state of their nervous system, and their nervous system is shaped by individual biological, emotional, and sensory differences.

Once we understand this, behavior becomes not a moral test but a window into the child’s internal world…..

Dr. M

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 15 Issue 32 – Year in Review: 2025

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

The Year in Review – 2025

Articles and Points of Interest:

1) Microplastics in the Brain – From Science Advances: “Human health is being threatened by environmental microplastic (MP) pollution. MPs were detected in the bloodstream and multiple tissues of humans, disrupting the regular physiological processes of organs. Nanoscale plastics can breach the blood-brain barrier, leading to neurotoxic effects. How MPs cause brain functional irregularities remains unclear. This work uses high-depth imaging techniques to investigate the MPs within the brain in vivo. We show that circulating MPs are phagocytosed and lead these cells to obstruction in the capillaries of the brain cortex. These blockages as thrombus formation cause reduced blood flow and neurological abnormalities in mice. Our data reveal a mechanism by which MPs disrupt tissue function indirectly through regulation of cell obstruction and interference with local blood circulation, rather than direct tissue penetration. This revelation offers a lens through which to comprehend the toxicological implications of MPs that invade the bloodstream.” (Huang et. al. 2025)

2) From Nature Medicine: “Brain insulin responsiveness is linked to long-term weight gain and unhealthy body fat distribution. Here we show that short-term overeating with calorie-rich sweet and fatty foods triggers liver fat accumulation and disrupted brain insulin action that outlasted the time-frame of its consumption in healthy weight men. Hence, brain response to insulin can adapt to short-term changes in diet before weight gain and may facilitate the development of obesity and associated diseases.” (Pullman et. al. 2025)….

Dr. M

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 15 Issue 31 – Poly Vagal Theory, Stephen Porges, PhD

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

I think that this is an important time to pause and relook at Polyvagal Theory before continuing with Beyond Behaviors.

Polyvagal Theory: Current Status, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions (Porges, S. 2025)

“Social behavior and the capacity to manage challenge are dependent on the neural regulation of physiological state.” S. Porges


When I dove into Stephen Porges’s 2025 review of the Polyvagal Theory (PVT), I felt like I’d stepped into a crossroads where neurobiology, clinical practice, trauma science, and human experience collide. This paper isn’t merely a summary of three decades of work (all of which I have read); it’s a spirited defense of a paradigm that’s been both celebrated (by me) and contested (by others). What follows is an honest appraisal of what the article teaches us, where it sparks real insight, and where it may fall short, especially through the lens of evidence-based medicine and developmental neurophysiology. (I also went deeper into his 2022 paper in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience for the biophysiology of the ANS)

At its heart, the article argues that the autonomic nervous system (ANS), through a set of hierarchically organized circuits centered on the vagus nerve, is not just a background player in stress and homeostasis, but a core regulator of social engagement, physiological flexibility, and behavior. Dr. Porges situates his theory as an alternative and expansion to classical views that treat sympathetic (fight/flight) and parasympathetic (rest/digest) branches as functional opposites. Instead, he proposes a three-component hierarchy: the ventral vagal complex (VVC) supporting social engagement, a mobilization circuit mediated by the sympathetic nervous system or fight or flight state, and a dorsal vagal circuit that facilitates shutdown or immobilization under extreme threat…..

Enjoy,
Dr. M

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 15 Issue 30 – Beyond Behaviors Part 2, Mona Delahooke, PhD

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

Review of Chapter 2 of Beyond Behaviors
by Mona Delahooke, PhD


“Social behavior and the capacity to manage challenge are dependent on the neural regulation of physiological state.” S. Porges

Top Down or Bottom Up?

“Before We Respond to Behavior, We Need to Understand Its Origin.”

With a deceptively simple observation, Dr. Delahooke reshapes the entire field of behavioral intervention: children’s actions come from two very different places in the brain. Some behaviors are top-down, intentional, planned, thoughtful. But many, especially the ones adults find most perplexing, arise bottom-up from stress responses generated by the body’s autonomic nervous system. We often think of this state in terms of fight or flight, however, it is not that simplistic. It is truly any significant response to the outside environment that leads to a neuroceptive reaction that is not governed by the neocortex, top down. If we don’t distinguish the source, our interventions are guesswork at best and often counterproductive at worst.

She illustrates this through a case, a child whose impulsive, disruptive behaviors were treated as failures of will or desire. School teachers and teams repeatedly urged him to “use his words,” as though language were a faucet he simply refused to turn on. What no one stopped to ask was the foundational question: Was his nervous system regulated enough to access language at all? Was he gated at the level of the amygdala blocking the ability to use his mind consciously and even have the opportunity to respond to a meaningful request? Is he capable of the ask, not in terms of willingness, but in terms of physiological access to the skill itself?
….. and more

Enjoy,
Dr. M

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 15 Issue 29 – Beyond Behaviors, Mona Delahooke, PhD


Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

Review of Chapter 1 of Beyond Behaviors
by Mona Delahooke, PhD


“When we see a behavior that is problematic or confusing, the first question we should ask isn’t “How do we get rid of it?” but rather “What is this telling us about the child?” (MD 2019)


The opening chapter sets the stage for a quiet revolution in how we understand children who struggle. Dr. Mona Delahooke invites us to take a step back from the culturally and medically ingrained belief that children’s outward actions are reliable windows into their inner intentions – or what they really mean and want based on their actions. Instead, she asks, nay implores, us to adopt a more biologically accurate, compassionate, and clinically effective lens from which to view each child as they present themselves. Their behavior is communication from a developing nervous system striving for regulation and often stuck somewhere else, either frozen or in flight…..
Dr. M

Dr. M’s SPA Newsletter Volume 15 Issue 28 – Feeding Infants


Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Email | RSS | More

Food in Infancy
What do we know?

“Humans are the only mammals who feed our young special complementary foods before weaning and we are the only primates that wean our young before they can forage independently. There appears to be a sensitive period in the first several months of life when infants readily accept a wide variety of tastes and this period overlaps with a critical window for oral tolerance. As a result, infants should be exposed to a wide variety of flavors while mother is pregnant, while mother is nursing and beginning at an early age. There also appears to be a sensitive period between 4 and 9 months when infants are most receptive to different food textures. There remains debate about when it is best to begin introducing solid foods into an infant’s diet however, the available evidence suggests that provided the water and food supply are free of contamination, and the infant is provided adequate nutrition, there are no clear contraindications to feeding infants complementary foods at any age. There is emerging evidence that introduction of solid foods into an infant’s diet by 4 months may increase their willingness to eat a variety of fruits and vegetables later in life, decrease their risk of having feeding problems later in life, and decrease their risk of developing food allergies, and the early introduction of solid foods into an infant’s diet does not appear to increase their risk of obesity later in childhood.” (Borowitz S. 2021)

Food Introductions — What’s the best way to approach it?

As infants begin the shift from exclusive milk feeding to solid foods, a range of opinions inevitably emerge on how to navigate that transition. It’s tempting to get lost in modern guidelines, but an anthropological lens is often more revealing. Long before the age of purées in jars and puffed snacks in canisters, human infants ate what their parents ate. It was delivered in whole-food form and mechanically softened by chewing, cooking, or crushing. These early first foods carried important evolutionary advantages…Plus a piece on Hell Yeh or No by Derek Sivers

Enjoy,
Dr. M

1 2 … 28