# At what age do you allow stomach sleeping?



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Dd is 6 months old now and actively rolling over. Sometimes, during naps, I notice that she'll roll over and end up on her stomach. I always turn her back over on her back or side but at what point is it okay to leave her that way? I read that SIDs isn't such a factor at this point since most cases occur from 2-4 months old. I am just curious as to what other mothers are doing at this point.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Birth. Most babies prefer it. I don't buy tummy sleeping as a SIDS risk.


----------



## nalo (Oct 25, 2005)

DD's been on her tummy since she was born.


----------



## Ellen Griswold (Feb 27, 2008)

Since she can roll over by herself, I'd just leave her that way.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

*personally* I was comfortable with most tummy sleeping from birth. But for every baby- once they can turn over, it's beyond absurd to try to force sleeping in a given position.

-Angela


----------



## columbusmomma (Oct 31, 2006)

DD has been on tummy since birth.


----------



## Oliverbsmom (Apr 16, 2008)

DS has slept on his tummy since he could roll over on his own. I remember trying to roll him back to his back, but that did not last long......he just rolled back to his tummy.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

When they can roll over themselves.

Some people are fine with tummy sleeping, forward facing in the car, etc but I prefer to minimise life-threatening things.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
Some people are fine with tummy sleeping, forward facing in the car, etc but I prefer to minimise life-threatening things.

I've yet to see any reliable research that shows that tummy sleeping is life-threatening.

-Angela


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

When my son could roll over on his own that way. I could relate, I also sleep on my tummy - I find it most comfortable.


----------



## AugustLia23 (Mar 18, 2004)

We allowed tummy sleeping from birth. The sids rates were only at 1% before Back to Sleep...


----------



## SeekingJoy (Apr 30, 2007)

Like pp, as soon as DD started to roll.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I've yet to see any reliable research that shows that tummy sleeping is life-threatening.

-Angela

References? I don't have the time to post mine right now.


----------



## ChetMC (Aug 27, 2005)

Our girls slept on their tummies from birth. However, I'd always heard that once a baby could roll themselves it was fine, and you didn't need to bother rolling them back. Like you said, the biggest risk is 2 to 4 months, and you're well past that.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
References? I don't have the time to post mine right now.

Hard to find references to the *lack* of information about something









-Angela


----------



## akilamonique (Jun 22, 2006)

When the can roll over on their tummy themselves.


----------



## mommy2abigail (Aug 20, 2005)

Birth. I also don't buy the whole tummy thing being a SIDS risk. Formula, chemicals in the mattress, and vaccines seem to be more of a SIDS risk imo.


----------



## bobbirs (Sep 27, 2006)

birth now with my first I think 2 weeks







She hated sleeping any other way!

Bobbi


----------



## ananas (Jun 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rmzbm* 
Birth. Most babies prefer it. I don't buy tummy sleeping as a SIDS risk.

Yup, agreed completely.


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Hard to find references to the *lack* of information about something









-Angela

But you're claiming the huge body of research into SIDS finds no link between tummy sleeping and SIDS. Since you've read it all, can you link to what formed your opinion.


----------



## tuscany123 (Feb 15, 2004)

DD always slept on her back, but when she could roll over, she slept on her stomach, and slept much better! When DS is born, I may actually try him on his tummy, and see how he does.


----------



## bright-midnight (Mar 26, 2007)

DD was a tummy sleeper from birth, it's the only way she will sleep.


----------



## MichaelsSahm (May 11, 2006)

I agree with everyone that said at birth! If the baby prefers tummy, then tummy it is. I am sorry, but I don't go by a book, i go by what i feel is right and my baby is comfertable with.


----------



## clavicula (Apr 10, 2005)

From day 1.


----------



## DXMama (Apr 10, 2008)

^Ditto. We "allowed" it from the beginning. He was more comfortable that way, so we went with it!


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I've yet to see any reliable research that shows that tummy sleeping is life-threatening.

-Angela

I guess a key to your comment is 'reliable research' and '_you_ have yet to see'. I have seen several reliable articles on how tummy sleeping for young infants increases their risk 5-7 times that of back sleepers. But then, I don't automatically distrust research findings considering that I am a researcher with several peer-reviewed journal publications and one patent pending. The studies don't have a scientifically proven reason for the increase but statistically the increase is sound, meaning that when they apply six sigma (a statistics model) the increase is relevant to the experiment. They have many theories as to why this is happening but the reasons in my opinion are irrelevant.

This is a good article, it has a few sources listed although it is just a presentation of some sort.

another one
another
another
one more

These are just abstracts, I believe you'll have to purchase them to read the whole article. If you decide to purchase the article, you'll see that when they make a statement such as "it has been shown that prone sleeping increases the risk of sids..." that they follow it up with a source. When a researcher makes statements like these, they are always backed up with a source. My point is that there are several well-thought out studies in a variety of different, well-respected, publications, that show tummy sleeping as a factor, a major one, in SIDS cases.

Whether you ascribe to the notion or not, tummy sleeping places babies at an increased risk for SIDs. It's important to note that the rate for SIDS cases in the US isn't all that high anyway, and among white people it's even less, so just b/c you've done it and your baby is fine doesn't mean it's not true. There are lots more articles out there which show there is a link. Babies sleep better on their tummies yes, which is why they are more likely to die that way.


----------



## kittyhead (Oct 28, 2005)

i may be in the minority here, but i was not comfortable with tummy sleeping. i let him sleep on his tummy if he was physically on top of me (which he was 95% of the time) but if i lay him down it was onto his back. when he started rolling over on his own i let him be in whatever position he wanted.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kittyhead* 
i may be in the minority here, but i was not comfortable with tummy sleeping. i let him sleep on his tummy if he was physically on top of me (which he was 95% of the time) but if i lay him down it was onto his back. when he started rolling over on his own i let him be in whatever position he wanted.

I think this is what I might do. I've read that for a baby who normally sleeps on their back, that the risk for SIDS is even higher if placed on their tummies since they don't normally sleep that way. I don't think the studies were done for babies 6 mo. and older tho so I don't believe it would matter if they're rolling over. I think it was mainly for younger infants. I might give it another month or so before I actually let her stay that way. What can I say


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

I have a reflux baby and we have been fighting to get him to sleep on his back or side since day 1. Even with meds now he still can't tolerate back sleep. I've done a lot of reading about SIDS and tummy sleep and I do believe that there is a higher incidence of SIDS when infants tummy sleep however I don't think all studies take into account that babies who are typically back sleepers and are placed on their tummy to sleep are at the highest risk.

What finally convinced me to just go with the flow is that we have no other risk factors for SIDS, I think there are more risks associated with lack of sleep in such a young infant in regards to development, and we genuinely tried. Many GI doctors actually recommend tummy sleep for reflux infants. We use an Angelcare Monitor which gives me a bit more peace of mind.

I'm curious as to why NICU babies and preemies are placed on their tummies if it is so risky? Honestly, it is interesting to me that the two ways babies are most comfortable for sleep, tummy and co-sleeping with parents, are supposed to be the most dangerous ways for them to sleep. It seems to me that our species would have adapted out of the preference if it were killing off our offspring. I guess I just get pretty frustrated with some of the hype about tummy sleep- the risk for SIDS is something like 1 in 2000. My son's pediatrician basically made me feel like if I placed him on his belly once for sleep he was going to die. Yet I doubt that she would tell a formula feeding mother that she was putting her baby at risk for SIDS when it is also a risk factor.


----------



## kapoentje (Feb 11, 2002)

As with most things, I think most of us gather what we feel to be adequate information (medical, scientific, opinionated) from sources around us and combine that with our own natural parenting instincts and common sense.

My husband and I had an awful time with our now 6 month old baby concerning sleep and gas. He abhorred sleeping on his back. Finally my husband and I decided to try tummy sleeping. I was absolutely convinced we'd find him dead, so I constantly watched over him. He's slept better since then and now we're not so paranoid.. but that's what worked for us as a family.


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

My ds1 was in the NICU and they did turn him from back to tummy. Not even thinking about that tidbit, I was ever so careful to keep him on his side or back until he was old enough to roll over on his own. With the subsequent babies I really relaxed and if they seemed more comfortable on their stomach, then that is how I did it, from birth. I make sure there's nothing near their heads, of course. I think a lot of babies just feel more secure on their stomachs, and I'm sure there are some that just don't like it.


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wannabe* 
When they can roll over themselves.

Some people are fine with tummy sleeping, forward facing in the car, etc but I prefer to minimise life-threatening things.

IME I've never found tummy sleeping to be life threatening. I think the safety of the sleeping area is what is important.


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

I think I'm in the middle here.

When DS was little, I always _put_ him to sleep on his back, and for the first four or five months of his life, he stayed that way all night without interference. At five months or so, he started to roll over, and I did not interfere with that. Now, I put him in his crib on his back, and he rolls to his side or belly immediately, but hey, he's thirteen months old, and rolling him back over is a sure ticket to a wakeful night.

I can't find links now, but I have some pretty clear recollections of reading the advice that you should *put* babies to sleep on their backs, but shouldn't worry about returning them to that position if they roll over during the night.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
I have a reflux baby and we have been fighting to get him to sleep on his back or side since day 1. Even with meds now he still can't tolerate back sleep. *I've done a lot of reading about SIDS and tummy sleep and I do believe that there is a higher incidence of SIDS when infants tummy sleep however I don't think all studies take into account that babies who are typically back sleepers and are placed on their tummy to sleep are at the highest risk.*

What finally convinced me to just go with the flow is that we have no other risk factors for SIDS, I think there are more risks associated with lack of sleep in such a young infant in regards to development, and we genuinely tried. Many GI doctors actually recommend tummy sleep for reflux infants. We use an Angelcare Monitor which gives me a bit more peace of mind.

*I'm curious as to why NICU babies and preemies are placed on their tummies if it is so risky? Honestly, it is interesting to me that the two ways babies are most comfortable for sleep, tummy and co-sleeping with parents, are supposed to be the most dangerous ways for them to sleep.* It seems to me that our species would have adapted out of the preference if it were killing off our offspring. *I guess I just get pretty frustrated with some of the hype about tummy sleep- the risk for SIDS is something like 1 in 2000.* My son's pediatrician basically made me feel like if I placed him on his belly once for sleep he was going to die. Yet I doubt that she would tell a formula feeding mother that she was putting her baby at risk for SIDS when it is also a risk factor.

The studies I've read do note that babies who normally sleep on their backs and then sleep on their tummies are higher risk but that is independant of the research done on babies who consistently are placed on their tummies.

Also, NICU babies are kept on their tummies sometimes, although I can't recall why, but it's not supposed to be done once they leave the hospital. I can't remember where I read this, it might have just been a blog or something.

Also, as I mentioned, the rate for SIDS in all births is low. Thankfully. But SIDS is a real problem and one in which there have been several factors associated with it addressed. There are a much higher number of babies who survive tummy sleeping than not but IMO it's not worth the risk even if the risk is low. Isn't this the same argument that most non-vaxers use to support them? The risk of vaccine related injury is low but not worth it. That's one of mine anyhow.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *kapoentje* 
As with most things, I think most of us gather what we feel to be adequate information (medical, scientific, opinionated) from sources around us and combine that with our own natural parenting instincts and common sense.

My husband and I had an awful time with our now 6 month old baby concerning sleep and gas. He abhorred sleeping on his back. Finally my husband and I decided to try tummy sleeping. *I was absolutely convinced we'd find him dead, so I constantly watched over him.* He's slept better since then and now we're not so paranoid.. but that's what worked for us as a family.

I understand this sentiment. It's not easy deciding what's best for your children sometimes. I know that babies sleep better on their tummies, but I also am African American which evidently has MUCH higher incidences of SIDS (although I believe it's not an inherent trait but more of a circumstantial one) so from early on I wasn't taking any chances.


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

Have we forgot about the new research that has linked SIDS to a particularly 'falty' (so to speak) gene?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3575798.stm

Obviously though, you dont really know if your child has this or not - unless you know your family history and there is cot death there. (cot death seems to be higher amongst african americans, but the gene in the new findings also seems to appear more in afircan ameircans as well - so I see link here thats not just circumstantial)

So taking that gene thing into factor, then yes, there are things you can do with your baby to help prevent that 'malfunction' of the gene, like laying your baby on their back to sleep, no smoking, etc etc

I would never place my baby on thier tummy in a cot in a different room from me... But I think we are forgetting that this is MDC - _most_ of us co sleep here. If you put your baby on their tummy to sleep, and they stopped breathing - or something else wasnt right - chances are, us co sleeping parents are going to be aware of that. I know I have woken up when my son has stopped breathing or he was getting a temperature or whatever because of the fact we co sleep - without that, I wouldnt have known these things. (and there is also plenty of research out there that says co sleepig actually lowers the risk of SIDS because of things like what I just mentioned - that fact you are there and you are aware, even in sleep)


----------



## akilamonique (Jun 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
I have a reflux baby and we have been fighting to get him to sleep on his back or side since day 1. Even with meds now he still can't tolerate back sleep. I've done a lot of reading about SIDS and tummy sleep and I do believe that there is a higher incidence of SIDS when infants tummy sleep however I don't think all studies take into account that babies who are typically back sleepers and are placed on their tummy to sleep are at the highest risk.

What finally convinced me to just go with the flow is that we have no other risk factors for SIDS, I think there are more risks associated with lack of sleep in such a young infant in regards to development, and we genuinely tried. Many GI doctors actually recommend tummy sleep for reflux infants. We use an Angelcare Monitor which gives me a bit more peace of mind.

I'm curious as to why NICU babies and preemies are placed on their tummies if it is so risky? Honestly, it is interesting to me that the two ways babies are most comfortable for sleep, tummy and co-sleeping with parents, are supposed to be the most dangerous ways for them to sleep. It seems to me that our species would have adapted out of the preference if it were killing off our offspring. I guess I just get pretty frustrated with some of the hype about tummy sleep- the risk for SIDS is something like 1 in 2000. My son's pediatrician basically made me feel like if I placed him on his belly once for sleep he was going to die. Yet I doubt that she would tell a formula feeding mother that she was putting her baby at risk for SIDS when it is also a risk factor.


I always put my son on his back, but from the day I brought him home-even in the hospital, he would somehow make his way to his side(weird).
Now, this is just a thought, but in your case, or anyone with a baby with reflux wouldn't it be _safer_ for them to sleep on their tummy because if they were on their back and they "spit up" in their sleep wouldn't they choke, or suffocate on their spit up? If they are on their tummy or side it will just dribble out?
Just a thought.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

Preemies do seem to breathe better on their bellies. But they are being watched by staff, have monitors, etc. I also noticed hospital staff put the babies on their bellies to sleep in the nursery and they do sleep well. But again, they are bring watched.

If I can't supervise the sleep, I am not comfortable with belly sleeping until they can get off of their bellies and onto their backs by themselves. But thats just my comfort. If a baby has severe reflux, there isn't much of a choice if you want the baby to sleep at all, though. They normally wont sleep flat on their backs. Once a baby is rolling both ways and crawling I don't worry about their position since they can easily change it if need be.

I used to always flip dd over once she was asleep, but she would just turn back over within seconds so I eventually gave up. She obviously knew what she wanted and I couldn't stay up 24 hours a day. I think she was around 5 months old then.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inspired007* 
I guess a key to your comment is 'reliable research' and '_you_ have yet to see'. I have seen several reliable articles on how tummy sleeping for young infants increases their risk 5-7 times that of back sleepers. But then, I don't automatically distrust research findings considering that I am a researcher with several peer-reviewed journal publications and one patent pending. The studies don't have a scientifically proven reason for the increase but statistically the increase is sound, meaning that when they apply six sigma (a statistics model) the increase is relevant to the experiment. They have many theories as to why this is happening but the reasons in my opinion are irrelevant.

This is a good article, it has a few sources listed although it is just a presentation of some sort.

another one
another
another
one more

These are just abstracts, I believe you'll have to purchase them to read the whole article. If you decide to purchase the article, you'll see that when they make a statement such as "it has been shown that prone sleeping increases the risk of sids..." that they follow it up with a source. When a researcher makes statements like these, they are always backed up with a source. My point is that there are several well-thought out studies in a variety of different, well-respected, publications, that show tummy sleeping as a factor, a major one, in SIDS cases.

Whether you ascribe to the notion or not, tummy sleeping places babies at an increased risk for SIDs. It's important to note that the rate for SIDS cases in the US isn't all that high anyway, and among white people it's even less, so just b/c you've done it and your baby is fine doesn't mean it's not true. There are lots more articles out there which show there is a link. Babies sleep better on their tummies yes, which is why they are more likely to die that way.

I don't have time to peruse those studies right now, but I would bet that in every one baby was in a crib alone. THAT IMO is a much bigger SIDS risk than tummy sleeping.

Biologically mammals are designed to sleep with mama.

-Angela


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I don't have time to peruse those studies right now, but I would bet that in every one baby was in a crib alone. THAT IMO is a much bigger SIDS risk than tummy sleeping.

Biologically mammals are designed to sleep with mama.

-Angela

That's entirely possible. According to a lot of articles tho, co-sleeping is a huge risk also. I believe the studies but have decided to co-sleep anyway since most of the danger is attributed to covers and soft mattresses, etc.


----------



## akilamonique (Jun 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I don't have time to peruse those studies right now, but I would bet that in every one baby was in a crib alone. THAT IMO is a much bigger SIDS risk than tummy sleeping.

Biologically mammals are designed to sleep with mama.

-Angela

I agree! My son didn't sleep in the same bed with us(I was too scared!, plus my hubby literally sleeps all over the place), but he did sleep in a co sleeper, so all I had to do is roll over to nurse etc.
I know the studies say co-sleeping is just as risky, but i'm not sure I believe that.
You are very aware of your baby when you co-sleep, I swear I slept so light that I could here him breath in my sleep, and any little peep he made, woke me up.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inspired007* 
That's entirely possible. According to a lot of articles tho, co-sleeping is a huge risk also. I believe the studies but have decided to co-sleep anyway since most of the danger is attributed to covers and soft mattresses, etc.

I have not read ANY reliable studies showing that safe cosleeping is a risk. Frankly the whole idea is absurd to me. Mammals are designed to sleep with mom.

Dr. McKenna has good research on why cosleeping is safer.

-Angela


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:

According to a lot of articles tho, co-sleeping is a huge risk also. I believe the studies but have decided to co-sleep anyway since most of the danger is attributed to covers and soft mattresses, etc.
well, technically, don't "the studies" say least risk is in the same room as parents, but on a different surface? I think that counts as co-sleeping too- ie, the cosleeper or bassinette right next to the bed. we did that with dd because I cannot sleep without blankets covering my face and we have tons of fluffy bedding.

I personally didn't let dd sleep on her stomach until she was past 1- she has special needs and had low muscle tone, and I didn't trust her to turn her face as a newborn if she wasn't getting enough oxygen- she would assume one position and sleep that way all night. now that she's older, she actually breathes much more quietly and easily on her stomach. I think with the next baby I would promote sleeping on back, but once they can roll over, there's really not much you can do, and I think those sleep positioners have more risk of covering the baby's face than doing any good. I have a friend whose baby died of SIDS at 11 months, so I'd probably be even more paranoid about it next time around and just do whatever feels right.

The SIDS research I'm most interested in is the link with hearing in the right ear.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0726153257.htm


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I have not read ANY reliable studies showing that safe cosleeping is a risk. Frankly the whole idea is absurd to me. *Mammals are designed to sleep with mom.*

Dr. McKenna has good research on why cosleeping is safer.

-Angela

I believe this too. I think the shift from co-sleeping is b/c our society places too much emphasis on independance at too young an age. I think it's unnatural to expect a baby to sleep alone when I (at 29) don't even want to sleep alone.


----------



## dubfam (Nov 4, 2005)

I think that it depends on the babe, and how soft the bedding is etc. But I would not worry at all if baby is able to roll over and lift their head easily.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

My first two I always laid on their backs and they didn't care. Once they could roll over the slept on their tummies most of the time but I didn't worry.

Dd3 is another story! She refuses to sleep on her back and even her side most of the time. I co-sleep with her and she ends up on her tummy after she nurses. The back thing has been so drilled into my head that it does make me nervous, but she refuses to sleep on her back, so what am I supposed to do?


----------



## DQMama (Mar 21, 2006)

I think what may be missing from this discussion is, what is "SIDS"? It is a meaningless term. It means that a coroner could not determine the cause of death. (And I don't say this lightly or without concern for those who have lost babies--my dear cousin lost her baby to SIDS two years ago.)

Suffocation is not SIDS. If the cause of death is suffocation, that means a cause of death was determined, so it was not, by definition, SIDS.

So a baby cannot, by definition, die of SIDS by suffocating in a parent's bedding, or by being unable to turn his head to breathe while tummy sleeping.

SIDS deaths will naturally decline over time as we learn more and more about causes of death. Also the big drop in SIDS deaths that came around the time of the Back to Sleep campaign also coincided with the widespread use of DTaP (acellular pertussis vaccine) instead of the less-safe DTP (whole-cell pertussis vaccine).

I also don't see how it could be coincidental that most SIDS deaths occur between 2-4 months of age, and decline after 6 months. The majority of vaccines are given at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Food for thought.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DQMama* 
I think what may be missing from this discussion is, what is "SIDS"? It is a meaningless term. It means that a coroner could not determine the cause of death. (And I don't say this lightly or without concern for those who have lost babies--my dear cousin lost her baby to SIDS two years ago.)

Suffocation is not SIDS. If the cause of death is suffocation, that means a cause of death was determined, so it was not, by definition, SIDS.

So a baby cannot, by definition, die of SIDS by suffocating in a parent's bedding, or by being unable to turn his head to breathe while tummy sleeping.

SIDS deaths will naturally decline over time as we learn more and more about causes of death. Also the big drop in SIDS deaths that came around the time of the Back to Sleep campaign also coincided with the widespread use of DTaP (acellular pertussis vaccine) instead of the less-safe DTP (whole-cell pertussis vaccine).

I also don't see how it could be coincidental that most SIDS deaths occur between 2-4 months of age, and decline after 6 months. The majority of vaccines are given at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Food for thought.

I don't think it's coincidental at all. I think there are many risk factors involved in SIDS cases.


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

I also think it is important to point out that back sleep will not necessarily prevent SIDS. Back sleep may reduce the risk but babies have died of SIDS on their backs, even while being held in their parents arms.

And I agree with an above poster about why the SIDS rate has dropped since Back To Sleep began. They are more accurately determining why babies are dying and not labeling as many as SIDS, the recommendations for nothing in crib but baby and the safe co-sleeping guidelines went into effect around the same time. Probably many suffocation deaths were attributed to SIDS and now that blankets, bedding and stuffed animals are largely out of the cribs of young infants, there are fewer suffocation deaths.

I'm not saying that tummy sleep doesn't increase the risk, I think there is a body of evidence that supports that it does. However, I think there is a bigger picture and other factors in play in why the rate has dropped in the last 15 years.


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

Alex slept on his tummy from day one.


----------



## akilamonique (Jun 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DQMama* 
I think what may be missing from this discussion is, what is "SIDS"? It is a meaningless term. It means that a coroner could not determine the cause of death. (And I don't say this lightly or without concern for those who have lost babies--my dear cousin lost her baby to SIDS two years ago.)

Suffocation is not SIDS. If the cause of death is suffocation, that means a cause of death was determined, so it was not, by definition, SIDS.

So a baby cannot, by definition, die of SIDS by suffocating in a parent's bedding, or by being unable to turn his head to breathe while tummy sleeping.

SIDS deaths will naturally decline over time as we learn more and more about causes of death. Also the big drop in SIDS deaths that came around the time of the Back to Sleep campaign also coincided with the widespread use of DTaP (acellular pertussis vaccine) instead of the less-safe DTP (whole-cell pertussis vaccine).

I also don't see how it could be coincidental that most SIDS deaths occur between 2-4 months of age, and decline after 6 months. The majority of vaccines are given at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. Food for thought.

WELL ARGUED!!! This argument could seriously go up against SIDS. The Back to Sleep Campaign, says use a stiff mattress, no blanket, or anything soft in your child's crib, but if those things are in you child's crib(they were in mine) they would attribute to SIDS they would cause suffocation, if you child got stuck near them, therefore it's NOT SIDS, it's suffocation like you said. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome=An infant dying unexpectedly, without a known cause, so if you REALLY think about it the entire cam-pain really doesn't make any sense. Makes you just go HMMMMM?????


----------



## hanno (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellen Griswold* 
Since she can roll over by herself, I'd just leave her that way.

This. My son's never been a huge tummy sleeper but he could roll since day 2.


----------



## onelilguysmommy (May 11, 2005)

birth, especially since my first could roll over, i had a great argument for people telling me it was so horrible


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *akilamonique* 
WELL ARGUED!!! This argument could seriously go up against SIDS. *The Back to Sleep Campaign, says use a stiff mattress, no blanket, or anything soft in your child's crib, but if those things are in you child's crib(they were in mine) they would attribute to SIDS they would cause suffocation, if you child got stuck near them, therefore it's NOT SIDS, it's suffocation like you said.* Sudden Infant Death Syndrome=An infant dying unexpectedly, without a known cause, *so if you REALLY think about it the entire cam-pain really doesn't make any sense.* Makes you just go HMMMMM?????

I agree that these aren't necessarily the same things but you have to remember that SIDS is determined by the lack of conclusive evidence at the autopsy to state a cause of death. I believe what they are saying is that these things (items in crib, soft mattress, etc.) are linked to the unexplained death. It is not just suffocation either. One of the reasons that they don't recommend blankets and tummy sleeping and the like is because of overheating which has also been linked to SIDS. They have been very cautious in describing exactly why, exactly, b/c they are just theories, but they've shown them to be links. For example, why is it that poverty plays a role in SIDS cases? Or the fact that African Americans are so much more likely to be victims of SIDS? At this point, they don't fully understand it but just b/c they can't explain it doesn't make the data less convincing.

I'm not sure why you don't think the campaign makes sense. I understand that on MDC there is this underlying mistrust of all things science and medical but there is no reason to not trust the myriad of studies that have been done to prove this link. I think most people are skeptical for no good reason. If nothing else, why not trust the data that shows how much the rate of SIDS has gone down since these links were made public. That, in and of itself, shows that we've gained a lot of ground where SIDS is concerned.

I think it is unfortunate that so many people are still placing their babies on their tummies at such an early age.







Again, I liken this to why take the risk? http://sids.org/nfeaturedques.htm

As with anything else, I would expect a parent to do the research before making a decision. Without reviewing the articles, a person who simply says 'I don't think...' or 'in my opinion' is only doing what we at MDC always judge mainstream parents for doing, making a decision without the facts. If you read the studies carefully, you'd see how they were designed. If a particular study is out to show whether a link exists between two things, it isn't going to add other variables to the equation. That would make the data uninterpretable. Why would anyone design a study to show that there is a link between SIDS and tummy sleeping and then include children in the data who slept in cribs and those who co-slept? They wouldn't. That would be two different studies since you couldn't infer much from the two and you can't compare the data. Read. Read. Read. Read how the study was conducted then make a decision. Anyone who simply mistrusts the info thats out there simply on the principle that they don't like the outcome isn't doing themselves any favors.

IMO.


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

Quote:

So a baby cannot, by definition, die of SIDS by suffocating in a parent's bedding, or by being unable to turn his head to breathe while tummy sleeping.
Suffocation should be listed as the cause of death as such, however, the "rebreathing" theory, which would cause an infant to continue to breath their own carbon dioxide instead of fresh air because of being in a deep sleep and not turning their face away from a blanket, mattress or pillow, is just one of many theories of what causes SIDS. Or rather, one of many possible occurrences that combined, cause SIDS.

Quote:

For example, why is it that poverty plays a role in SIDS cases? Or the fact that African Americans are so much more likely to be victims of SIDS?
do you know of any studies where even after adjusting for income and breastfeeding, AA infants still had a higher rate of SIDS? I believe it's a combo of low bf'ing rates and poverty (which almost always = poor nutrition- poor maternal nutrition during pregnancy, and possible watering down of formula, lack of formula, other inappropriate feeding).

I, personally, believe it's a genetic predisposition. Add insults to the immune system such as vaccines, lack of breastfeeding, and then put that baby in a situation where their brain may not tell their body to respond correctly if they're not getting enough oxygen, and they die. Low vitamin C appears to play a major role as well, and I have read a theory involving e-coli endotoxin which made a lot of sense. However, I definitely agree that 100 different children who were all labeled SIDS might have had 100 different actual causes of death.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bri276* 
Suffocation should be listed as the cause of death as such, however, the "rebreathing" theory, which would cause an infant to continue to breath their own carbon dioxide instead of fresh air because of being in a deep sleep and not turning their face away from a blanket, mattress or pillow, is just one of many theories of what causes SIDS. Or rather, one of many possible occurrences that combined, cause SIDS.

do you know of any studies where even after adjusting for income and breastfeeding, AA infants still had a higher rate of SIDS? *I believe it's a combo of low bf'ing rates and poverty (which almost always = poor nutrition- poor maternal nutrition during pregnancy, and possible watering down of formula, lack of formula, other inappropriate feeding).*

*I, personally, believe it's a genetic predisposition. Add insults to the immune system such as vaccines, lack of breastfeeding, and then put that baby in a situation where their brain may not tell their body to respond correctly if they're not getting enough oxygen, and they die.* Low vitamin C appears to play a major role as well, and I have read a theory involving e-coli endotoxin which made a lot of sense. However, I definitely agree that 100 different children who were all labeled SIDS might have had 100 different actual causes of death.


I believe you are correct, but it's not only a combination of bf'ing rates but also the fact that many people are still opposed to back sleeping.

Quote:

50% of black babies are still sleeping on their stomachs and African-American are twice as likely to bed share.
This is from that presentation I listed before. It's not a peer reviewed paper so it's contents should be taken lightly but it has some sources listed.

With regard to the second part I bolded, I've read a few papers which suggest a genetic factor as well. The theory is that there is a 'switch' of some sort that malfunctions so that when the baby is put in one of these 'risky' situations, they don't wake up. All babies have apnea to some extent but these babies don't get the signal to wake up when their apnea is extended due to the 'risky' situation they are placed in.

Whether you buy into the whole tummy thing or not, based on all the info that's out there, it's not just a paranoia that has women placing their babies on their backs. I will NEVER let any baby of mine sleep consistently on their tummies, especially unattended, while they're younger than 6 months (or rolling I suppose). That's just me. As the saying goes 'do you' and I'll 'do me'.

SIDS cases are multifactorial and just because you eliminate one factor, doesn't mean that other factors aren't going to be significant. Just because you bf doesn't mean that the tummy risk won't matter for your baby. And you never know how one of your babies might respond to a certain risk. And considering all the research I've read and studied (with my trained eye) on the increase in risk for tummy sleepers, I personally think it's a ridiculous risk to take (unless as some women have said, there are other issues involved that make tummy sleeping necessary).


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inspired007* 
I will NEVER let any baby of mine sleep consistently on their tummies, especially unattended, while they're younger than 6 months (or rolling I suppose). That's just me. As the saying goes 'do you' and I'll 'do me'.

Well, I have no problem with tummy sleeping, but perhaps that's because I DO have a problem with young infants sleeping unattended. I wouldn't allow THAT before they are rolling and moving on their own. So while I allow tummy sleeping, I'm always in the room.

-Angela


----------



## akilamonique (Jun 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inspired007* 
I agree that these aren't necessarily the same things but you have to remember that SIDS is determined by the lack of conclusive evidence at the autopsy to state a cause of death. I believe what they are saying is that these things (items in crib, soft mattress, etc.) are linked to the unexplained death. It is not just suffocation either. One of the reasons that they don't recommend blankets and tummy sleeping and the like is because of overheating which has also been linked to SIDS. They have been very cautious in describing exactly why, exactly, b/c they are just theories, but they've shown them to be links. For example, why is it that poverty plays a role in SIDS cases? Or the fact that African Americans are so much more likely to be victims of SIDS? At this point, they don't fully understand it but just b/c they can't explain it doesn't make the data less convincing.

I'm not sure why you don't think the campaign makes sense. I understand that on MDC there is this underlying mistrust of all things science and medical but there is no reason to not trust the myriad of studies that have been done to prove this link. I think most people are skeptical for no good reason. If nothing else, why not trust the data that shows how much the rate of SIDS has gone down since these links were made public. That, in and of itself, shows that we've gained a lot of ground where SIDS is concerned.

I think it is unfortunate that so many people are still placing their babies on their tummies at such an early age.








Again, I liken this to why take the risk? http://sids.org/nfeaturedques.htm

As with anything else, I would expect a parent to do the research before making a decision. Without reviewing the articles, a person who simply says 'I don't think...' or 'in my opinion' is only doing what we at MDC always judge mainstream parents for doing, making a decision without the facts. If you read the studies carefully, you'd see how they were designed. If a particular study is out to show whether a link exists between two things, it isn't going to add other variables to the equation. That would make the data uninterpretable. Why would anyone design a study to show that there is a link between SIDS and tummy sleeping and then include children in the data who slept in cribs and those who co-slept? They wouldn't. That would be two different studies since you couldn't infer much from the two and you can't compare the data. Read. Read. Read. Read how the study was conducted then make a decision. Anyone who simply mistrusts the info thats out there simply on the principle that they don't like the outcome isn't doing themselves any favors.

IMO.

In all the research and studies they have done on SIDS, as anyone checked to see if there is a possible link between obstructive sleep apnea and SIDS?

That could quite possibly explain the higher rate of SIDS in African Americans, because African American Children with OSA have a significantly lower oxygen level then other groups(and it's more likely to go untreated- I was just diagnosed, i'm 32,and i've complained of the same problems all my life, my father wasn't diagnosed until he was an adult, and my son's doctor is giving me a hard time despite my bringing in recordings of him sleeping).
African Americans are twice as likely to have OSA, we are also more likely to be overweight.
I have seen information that there is no direct link, but it is something to really consider, because it is a condition that LARGELY goes undiagnosed, especially in children and babies.


----------



## aaronsmom (Jan 22, 2007)

I've "allowed" DD to sleep on her tummy since birth but she usually prefers to sleep on her side turned towards me. Of course, she never sleeps unattended, even during nap times. She is either sleeping next to me, in the same room as me, or on me in the wrap or mei tai so I'm never worried about something happening to her.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *akilamonique* 
In all the research and studies they have done on SIDS, as anyone checked to see if there is a possible link between obstructive sleep apnea and SIDS?

That could quite possibly explain the higher rate of SIDS in African Americans, because African American Children with OSA have a significantly lower oxygen level then other groups(and it's more likely to go untreated- I was just diagnosed, i'm 32,and i've complained of the same problems all my life, my father wasn't diagnosed until he was an adult, and my son's doctor is giving me a hard time despite my bringing in recordings of him sleeping).
African Americans are twice as likely to have OSA, we are also more likely to be overweight.
I have seen information that there is no direct link, but it is something to really consider, because it is a condition that LARGELY goes undiagnosed, especially in children and babies.


Interesting....I'm not sure. Very interesting. I'll look into it.


----------



## BMG580 (Jun 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inspired007* 
I will NEVER let any baby of mine sleep consistently on their tummies, especially unattended, while they're younger than 6 months (or rolling I suppose). That's just me. As the saying goes 'do you' and I'll 'do me'.


So what would you do in the situation that your baby would not sleep on their back regardless of what you tried? I've tried two different swings, the car seat, a bassinet, a crib and with both of those I raised the head of it up to help with the reflux. I have 7 baby carriers and the only one he will tolerate is the wrap. While I try and wear him for one nap each day I have a 2 year old and I can't wear him 8+ hours a day and do other things. I don't take tummy sleeping lightly, I have an Angelcare Monitor in his crib that tracks his breathing, I have a video monitor and a Fisher Price audio monitor. At this point I think he may be the most monitored baby in the USA.

Would you just not have the baby sleep? Would you have the baby scream in misery on their back until they were asleep? Would you let your house go to hell and ignore your other children because all you were doing was trying to get the baby to sleep and once put down have them wake up screaming so you have to start the process all over again? There have got to be some long term developmental problems associated with lack of sleep in infants, I would imagine. I'm telling you, I've been there in the scenario I listed above and it was terrible.

With all this said, I'm waiting on an Amby to arrive, I hear they are great for reflux babies. I was just like you, very certain I would never let a baby of mine tummy sleep and even though my daughter didn't sleep a 6 hour stretch until 18 months I followed every single recommendation. I think it is impossible to know what you would do unless you are in the situation.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JEB20005* 
So what would you do in the situation that your baby would not sleep on their back regardless of what you tried? I've tried two different swings, the car seat, a bassinet, a crib and with both of those I raised the head of it up to help with the reflux. I have 7 baby carriers and the only one he will tolerate is the wrap. While I try and wear him for one nap each day I have a 2 year old and I can't wear him 8+ hours a day and do other things. I don't take tummy sleeping lightly, I have an Angelcare Monitor in his crib that tracks his breathing, I have a video monitor and a Fisher Price audio monitor. At this point I think he may be the most monitored baby in the USA.

Would you just not have the baby sleep? Would you have the baby scream in misery on their back until they were asleep? Would you let your house go to hell and ignore your other children because all you were doing was trying to get the baby to sleep and once put down have them wake up screaming so you have to start the process all over again? There have got to be some long term developmental problems associated with lack of sleep in infants, I would imagine. I'm telling you, I've been there in the scenario I listed above and it was terrible.

With all this said, I'm waiting on an Amby to arrive, I hear they are great for reflux babies. I was just like you, very certain I would never let a baby of mine tummy sleep and even though my daughter didn't sleep a 6 hour stretch until 18 months I followed every single recommendation. I think it is impossible to know what you would do unless you are in the situation.

I hear you. Obviously, sometimes babies just don"t cooperate with our very detailed plans. But thats why I said this:

Quote:

And considering all the research I've read and studied (with my trained eye) on the increase in risk for tummy sleepers, I personally think it's a ridiculous risk to take (unless as some women have said, there are other issues involved that make tummy sleeping necessary).
And if it were me and I was dealing with the issues you've had to deal with I'd probably allow tummy sleeping in that case and then rely on *lots* of prayer to get my baby thru it. But that's just me.


----------



## Yuba_River (Sep 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Inspired007* 
I agree that these aren't necessarily the same things but you have to remember that SIDS is determined by the lack of conclusive evidence at the autopsy to state a cause of death. I believe what they are saying is that these things (items in crib, soft mattress, etc.) are linked to the unexplained death. It is not just suffocation either. One of the reasons that they don't recommend blankets and tummy sleeping and the like is because of overheating which has also been linked to SIDS. They have been very cautious in describing exactly why, exactly, b/c they are just theories, but they've shown them to be links. For example, why is it that poverty plays a role in SIDS cases? Or the fact that African Americans are so much more likely to be victims of SIDS? At this point, they don't fully understand it but just b/c they can't explain it doesn't make the data less convincing.

I'm not sure why you don't think the campaign makes sense. I understand that on MDC there is this underlying mistrust of all things science and medical but there is no reason to not trust the myriad of studies that have been done to prove this link. I think most people are skeptical for no good reason. If nothing else, why not trust the data that shows how much the rate of SIDS has gone down since these links were made public. That, in and of itself, shows that we've gained a lot of ground where SIDS is concerned.

I think it is unfortunate that so many people are still placing their babies on their tummies at such an early age.







Again, I liken this to why take the risk? http://sids.org/nfeaturedques.htm

As with anything else, I would expect a parent to do the research before making a decision. Without reviewing the articles, a person who simply says 'I don't think...' or 'in my opinion' is only doing what we at MDC always judge mainstream parents for doing, making a decision without the facts. If you read the studies carefully, you'd see how they were designed. If a particular study is out to show whether a link exists between two things, it isn't going to add other variables to the equation. That would make the data uninterpretable. Why would anyone design a study to show that there is a link between SIDS and tummy sleeping and then include children in the data who slept in cribs and those who co-slept? They wouldn't. That would be two different studies since you couldn't infer much from the two and you can't compare the data. Read. Read. Read. Read how the study was conducted then make a decision. Anyone who simply mistrusts the info thats out there simply on the principle that they don't like the outcome isn't doing themselves any favors.

IMO.

I completely agree. Thank you for your careful attention to the research, and for sharing your insights with the board.


----------



## Paigekitten (Feb 22, 2008)

My DD usually slept on her side because we would nurse to sleep. I always laid her down on her back if I moved her, and if she ever rolled onto her tummy I would watch her, or roll her onto her back. This was only until I was confident that she was capable of rolling while asleep.


----------



## serenityjewell (Oct 3, 2006)

This is such a tough question. I don't ever put my 3 month old on her stomach, but she does sleep on her side often because we co-sleep. She always sleeps on her back when she sleeps in a room alone. When we're with her, I'm less cautious. We started putting her brother on his tummy for naps at about 7 months. He could roll and was pretty hearty by then.

Sarah*


----------



## DQMama (Mar 21, 2006)

What if there is a link between SIDS and mitochondrial disorders? I doubt they test the mitochondria when a baby dies suddenly, since that kind of testing is difficult anyway. I thought of this because of the Hannah Poling case, in which the court ruled that her mito disorder and autism symptoms were triggered by her vaccines. So I looked up mito disorder and it listed autism and SIDS as "atypical presentations" of the disease.

http://biochemgen.ucsd.edu/mmdc/ep-3-10.pdf
(page 5)

I still don't understand the rebreathing carbon dioxide thing. Wouldn't that still be determined as a cause of death?

Can't deep sleep lead to SIDS? The deep, unnatural sleep many babies experience following vaccination or when they are too hot, or during an illness...or as a result of sleeping longer and deeper due to a fuller tummy with formula.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DQMama* 
What if there is a link between SIDS and mitochondrial disorders? I doubt they test the mitochondria when a baby dies suddenly, since that kind of testing is difficult anyway. I thought of this because of the Hannah Poling case, in which the court ruled that her mito disorder and autism symptoms were triggered by her vaccines. So I looked up mito disorder and it listed autism and SIDS as "atypical presentations" of the disease.

http://biochemgen.ucsd.edu/mmdc/ep-3-10.pdf
(page 5)

I still don't understand the rebreathing carbon dioxide thing. *Wouldn't that still be determined as a cause of death?*

*Can't deep sleep lead to SIDS?* *The deep, unnatural sleep many babies experience following vaccination or when they are too hot, or during an illness...or as a result of sleeping longer and deeper due to a fuller tummy with formula.*

I am not sure about ALL the research that has been done regarding SIDS and there may be a lot of validity to these theories as well.

I'm no sure about the CO2 rebreathing. I am not a medical examiner and I don't know what can be proven or not. I think that they can determine asphyxiation as a cause of death but it may not be until all else has been ruled out or something like that. Honestly, I am not really sure about that.

From what I know, deep sleep can definitely lead to SIDS which is why they recommend against tummy sleeping. They have more apnea and much deeper sleep when on their tummies. I've read a few blurbs which intimate that vaxes can play a role, which is another reason I am glad we're not vaxing (either delayed or not at all, we still haven't fully decided yet). The too hot theory is also one that I believe might be well established; tummy sleepers retain more heat and also overbundling has been attributed to SIDS. Formula fed babies definitely have higher risks of SIDS and I think that's been attributed to the fact that their tummies are so full and heavy that they aren't as easily aroused and the fact that breastfed babies usually co-sleep (which contradicts the notion that bed-sharing is bad) and are aroused more often since they sleep next to mommy.


----------



## Inspired007 (Aug 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Paigekitten* 
My DD usually slept on her side because we would nurse to sleep. I always laid her down on her back if I moved her, and if she ever rolled onto her tummy I would watch her, or roll her onto her back. This was only until I was confident that she was capable of rolling while asleep.

Since reading this thread, this is what I've been doing this weekend. Babies do sleep better on their tummies but until now I was never comfortable with it. Dd is now 6 months old and flips at the drop of a dime. The only problem I am having is that when she flips to her stomach, she places her head face down into the bedding. She will sleep like that if I let her, which I surely don't, but this is sooo nerve wracking.


----------

