# Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

So, I was chatting with a message board friend of mine recently and mentioned how our sleeping was going (ugh, hate it when that happens!).
She then emailed me this question:

Quote:

What would you say to the assertions in the book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child" that a baby older than 4 months old needs to have 11-14 hours of consolidated sleep for healthy brain development? Sleeping through the night, according to this book is not about convenience or bonding or anything...it is about proper physical and mental development.
Does it really say that? I can't be the only one who finds that really wierd. I mean, don't ALL babies wake up during the night? (all people really). Isn't the main difference between "sleep trained" babies and my nurse-to-sleep baby that the "sleep trained" babies can get back to sleep on their own, so they don't bother anyone?
I told her that all people go through sleep cycles, and wake, or at least stir a little bit, during light sleep. And that my ds just needs me to help him get BACK to sleep.
Since I KNOW how often my ds wakes up at night, wouldn't that make it easier to know if he IS waking up too often- not only during light sleep? Then I could try to figure out why- irritating sleepwear, allergy, illness, etc. How would a parent of a sleep trained baby know that?

Ok, mostly curious as to whether the book really says that.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I'd say that sounds like crap and I want to see the research basis of it. I also want to see what close primate relatives have for sleep patterns in their infants and children.

-Angela


----------



## Happygrl6 (May 3, 2005)

My copy is downstairs and I'm nak, so I can't check right now.

That said...I've read that, or a variation of that, in more than one book on sleep. But I didn't take it to mean straight hours with absolutely no waking. I took it to mean (maybe because of further explanation in one of the books I've read?) that they just need that many hours of nighttime sleep. Consolidated meaning close together rather than spaced out throughout the da (like a newborn). So a nighttime sleep going, for example, from 7pm-7am though not without any wakings just that that is their "end-of-the-day time" and "start-of-the-day time".

I'm not sure of the research behind it but I know that *I* function better/am more refreshed/can think more clearly/etc. when I get X number of straight (but not without normal sleep-cycle wakings) hours of sleep v. X hours spread out over the day. So in taht way, it makes sense to me.

That book DOES talk about sleep cycles and how we momentarily awake as we come out of one, etc.

If someone doesn't answer before, I'll check in the morning.


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

The trouble with that book is that you can't tell how much of it is really actual facts, and how much is pseudo-facts the author threw in to back up his agenda. I recently picked it up in a bookstore and skimmed it, and I was horrified at some of what I saw, like the suggestion that being allowed to cry until he vomits does a baby "no harm." And then there was some really useful stuff that rang true, like his assertion that falling asleep nursing is natural and healthy. So who knows what to think about any of it? I have heard in many other places that there is an average amount of sleep that most babies "need" at certain ages, and that chronic deprivation of sleep can be dangerous, but I've never heard from any source I trust that babies are supposed to get that sleep all in one big stint.

Frankly, I think this is the worst of the "sleep training" books. At least Ferber pays some lip service to the idea that baby might need some comforting and sense of security, and hence advocates going in periodically. As bad as that is, Weissbluth can't even see the point of that, and claims it's better to just leave them totally alone to cry.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Weissbluth specializes in children with *severe* sleep disturbances; children who are chronically *very* sleep deprived can have developmental delays. But he takes the extremes and extrapolates (based on his opinion, not on research) that this then might mean normal night waking is also bad. It's a HUGE leap, one you have to swallow whole to buy his theories/methods. I think it's one of those cases that he's seen so much pathology he doesn't know what normal IS; when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, kwim?


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Happygrl6*
That said...I've read that, or a variation of that, in more than one book on sleep. But I didn't take it to mean straight hours with absolutely no waking. I took it to mean (maybe because of further explanation in one of the books I've read?) that they just need that many hours of nighttime sleep. Consolidated meaning close together rather than spaced out throughout the da (like a newborn). So a nighttime sleep going, for example, from 7pm-7am though not without any wakings just that that is their "end-of-the-day time" and "start-of-the-day time".

Oh yes. THAT makes more sense. lol. I guess a lot of people wouldn't take it like that though.

I emailed her back saying that ALL people wake up momentarily at night, and as long as its during light sleep, it doesn't affect development.

She replied that I definitely thought a lot about it. And she said that she doesn't agree with me. lol oh well


----------



## sweetc (Aug 12, 2003)

Yes, the book does say that.

It's an awful book. I read it when someone loaned it to me when DS1 was little. It made me sick. I feel sorry for the babies who have to deal with the ramifications his ideas.

The only sleep book I've found any good is Elizabeth Pantley's No-Cry Sleep Solution.

Christine


----------



## johub (Feb 19, 2005)

I would say that it is absolutely impossible that somethign that is not the biological norm could possibly be necessary for optimum development or survival.
Babies all over the world and for all time wake during the night until either they grow out of the need or they are ignored so calling for help is pointless.
SInce babies waking is the biological norm and is what would happen if it was not interfered with, the only possible reason is because it is the biologically appropriate thing for a child to do.
It would take a rediculous amount of supporting evidence (and not just the assertion of an expert's opinion) to change the facts that millions of years of evolution supports.
Dr Weisbruth can say what he wants, it doesnt change the facts.
Joline


----------



## lnitti (Jun 14, 2004)

consolidated sleep does not mean consecutive hours of sleep. it means the right combination of night time and nap sleep. For example, if you wake every hour, it doesn't matter if you're getting 10 hours of sleep, you won't feel as rested as if you even got 5 hours consecutive. For babies (not speaking of newborns), having a bunch of 1/2 naps is not as restful as having maybe a couple of 1 and a half hour naps.

When he refers to 11-14 hours of consolidated sleep, he doesn't mean all in one stretch, but more like 3 1-2 hour naps and maybe 9-10 hours at night or something like that. Waking for feedings then going back to sleep is just fine and does not break up the consolidation, but waking up to play in the middle of the night would. A 4 month old is expected to wake in the night.

When I read the book, I got a lot of good information from it. Weisbruth does advocate CIO, but if you just ignore that part, there actually is a lot of good detailed info regarding sleep patterns and sleep cycles, etc. Just don't use his advice to try to change your babies sleep patterns.


----------



## mommy65 (Jul 11, 2005)

But if it's true that you need unbroken sleep, and that babies need longer naps as opposed to several cat naps, then how do babies fare in places where they ride on mama as she goes about her work, say, in the fields of Africa? Are those babies getting long restful naps or are they catnapping throughout the day in a sling? Just curious since my babe can't get a decent nap with ds#1 making tons of noise and not giving me the time I need to "properly" put him down for a nap most of the time. Often I just wear him for a nap of about 30-40 minutes and then realise he's woken up at some point while I was playing cars or scraping play dough off the couch. Really curious about this.


----------



## lnitti (Jun 14, 2004)

I would say to play it by ear. Every baby has different sleep needs.

If your baby is a newborn or younger infant, many short catnaps is totally natural.

We knew we had to consolidate sleep when I could no longer get dd down for the night without a huge fuss and spending lots of time with her fight sleep.

When I helped her consolidate her naps from 2 45 minute naps to 1 that was 1 and a half to 2 hourse (around 9 months or so), it was a breeze (most nights) to get her to sleep at night. We still have an occasional night where she fights it.

I wouldn't worry too much about it for young infants. They have a built in ability to shut down and sleep any time they need it regardless of a reasonable amount of noise (at least in my experience).


----------

