# Anyone else skeptical about 'back to sleep'



## mahdokht (Dec 2, 2002)

*


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

I haven't done any research on it, but it has never made sense to me. I mean, maybe it's because ds was able to lift his head from the day he was born. I just never felt that he would be in danger if he slept on his stomach.

A friend of mine took her dd to the first ped appt. when she was 4 days old. She told the ped that they coslept, and they ped got on her case about how dangerous it was, and how she could smother the baby. She was outraged, but also a little freaked as a new mom. When she got home, she lay down next to her baby while the baby slept, and gently covered her mouth to see what the baby would do. Immediately, her dd started squirming, turning her head, and started to flail. (Please know that she wasn't actually smothering her daughter - she just wanted to see for herself what might happen if something were to block her daughter's mouth while she was sleeping.) It seems to me that a baby would be safer on her stomach sleeping next to her mom than on her back in a crib in a separate room with no one to sense her distress.

Anyway, like I said, I don't have anything factual to contribute, but have always felt like the whole sleeping on the back as a safety rule just didn't make that much sense to me. I mean, I followed it just because I was a new parent and didn't have anything to back up the idea that it wasn't important, but when ds was having trouble sleeping those first few months I tried putting him on his stomach just to see if it helped. I admit I was relieved that he didn't like it, but would have felt okay about it if it turned out that he slept better that way.

I do remember reading that SIDS rates peak between 2-4 months, which is when babies start their vaccinations. I always thought that that was fairly interesting.


----------



## jessikate (Jul 19, 2002)

I think that as soon as the baby has some head control (can lift/turn her head), she should be okay to sleep on her tummy. My DD has never liked to be on her stomach, but she slept on her side until she learned to roll from side to side. Now she sleeps on her back with arms and legs splayed







:

It seems to me that whatever seems safest to you is probably okay - we're most of us following our instincts here, and they're generally right on. If your bed is safe for baby and baby's comfortable on her tummy, then go for it.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

My personal feeling is that crib sleeping creates this issue - with the parents so far away from the baby, there is no way they can monitor with the same precision as a mother who sleeps next to her babe. But since SIDS research almost always uses isolated sleeping environments as the norm for infant sleep, I feel that back sleeping gets overly emphasized as a factor in SIDS deaths.

My own belief is that babies have evolved in an environment where they would be sleeping next to a parent (and we are talking millions of years of primates here). Dr McKenna's research showing the synchronization of maternal/infant respiration, heart rate, and sleep cycles when cosleeping says to me that babies (who are neurologically VERY immature compared to other primates) function optimally at night when next to an adult.

I feel that SIDS is really a "sleep system" failure. In other words, whereas many babies can survive nocturnal separation, there will be a significant amount who simply cannot function optimally in an isolated sleep environment b/c we did not evolve to be in that environment. I think people tend to believe that because *most* babies can survive crib sleeping, those who die of SIDS must have some underlying pathology. I don't think so. I think SIDS babies still lie within the range of normal, but towards the "more dependent" end of the spectrum. Perhaps there is something about sleeping on the back that tips the scales more in their favour. And in turn, cosleeping would not necessarily be a guarantee against SIDS, but would be expected to significantly lower the risk (which I believe is being shown now).

When you stop and consider the incredibly complex neurological process of "sleep" it does not surprise me that many infants simply cannot handle it alone. I think the back to sleep thing is a red herring.


----------



## emmaline (Dec 16, 2001)

piglet very sensible thoughts









back sleeping has been recommended here for some years and sleep clinics (where babies and mums go for "sleep training") have proliferated in that time









both my older kids would only sleep well on their tummies (and even newborns instinctively turn their heads to the side then unless they have a neurological problem) and ds3 is looking to be similar so I can't help wondering if terrorising parents into only back-sleeping is causing sleep trouble for many babies who would be happier elsewhere

also when you look at the shape of a babies head, the sides are very flat and mouth and nose have plenty of space to breathe rpoperly when on the tummy


----------



## mahdokht (Dec 2, 2002)

*


----------



## Mallory (Jan 2, 2002)

I always felt comfortable putting my newborns to sleep on thier bellies.

Of course I think that a lot of our nursing most of the night babies also spend a lot of time sleeping on their sides. And that curled up on thier side right next to mom is a way many babies have slept for ages.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

Babies DO sleep better on their bellies. There is something about the position that settles them, perhaps the pressure on their stomachs.
There is some thought (as Piglet68 mentioned) that babies who die of SIDS have a sub-normal response to deep sleep. They do not re-waken properly. It is usually a trifecta of conditions, the deep sleep induced by tummy-sleeping, the lowered ability to waken from deep sleep, and usually a third factor like a cold, a too warm crib, or a partially obsured face (sheepskin, pillow, stuffed toy, blanket).
So, putting all babies on their backs, not letting them sleep as well or as deeply will have a protective effect. So will sleeping next to their parents, who rouse them occasionally, and encourage healthy sleep cycling through their own sleep patterns. Breastfeeding will help too, keeping infants from getting a cold until older and better able to cope.
There are lots of ways to reduce the risk, however, back-to-sleep seems to be the easier to advocate and to do, so that's where we are.


----------



## fyrflymommy (Jan 20, 2003)

i read somewhere that baby mattresses emit toxic fumes, and that a tummy-sleeping baby is breathing and rebreathing it....so sids death is lessened if the babe sleeps on its back. that's what i read.. i can't remember where i read it. might have been www.healthychild.com


----------



## MelMel (Nov 9, 2002)

I completely agree with the thought of the 2-4 months thing and vaccinations, just as a novice researcher...that just jumped out at me...the 'coincidence' of the timing. also the thing with being in a crib in a seperate room, where parent cant or wont attend to babies needs...not knowing that the baby is in distress. I also agree with the mattress thing. those plastic infant mattresses emit lots of junk probably.

we had a SIDS in our family, a cousin, i never found out how or why, I was not yet a teen when it happened...but I do know that the baby was nearly 3 months, and the parents are (now-not sure about then, because they were distant relations) heavy smokers. this was about 15 years ago.

I always put Veronica to sleep on her back...i think she preferred it, but she was in a bassinett, then a crib for a few weeks, and then with us...I agree with whoever said that a baby sleeps safest and best on its side, curled next to its parent.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

I also don't understand why SIDS would be most common from 2-4 months. A newborn is much more helpless than a 2 month old as far as being able to move his head....

?Vaccinations??? I know studies have not shown a link, but it makes you wonder. It is also interesting that many parents will move the baby from a cradle or bassinet in their bedroom, to a crib in another room right around this time period.

I would like to see a study that looks at SIDS, and whether the parents did CIO or not with the young babies. Babies who CIO are said to sleep longer and more soundly, so I would wonder if there is a link.

Just some rambling musings....


----------



## Aster (Aug 12, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by fyrflymommy_
*i read somewhere that baby mattresses emit toxic fumes, and that a tummy-sleeping baby is breathing and rebreathing it....so sids death is lessened if the babe sleeps on its back. that's what i read.. i can't remember where i read it. might have been www.healthychild.com*
Here's an article that talks about how to avoid toxic fumes from all matresses...
http://www.mercola.com/2001/oct/27/sids_prevention.htm

Quote:

How to Wrap a Baby's Mattress for SIDS Prevention
The advice to wrap mattresses applies to every mattress on which a baby sleeps (except a BabeSafe mattress) and includes: mattresses of other children; adults' mattresses; and all mattresses made of or containing natural products such as sheepskins, goatskins, kapok, tree bark, coconut fibre, etc.


----------



## seren (Jul 11, 2003)

Both of my children sleep on their tummies. they will not sleep on their backs unless in the car. When my ds was a few weeks old I went back to my midwife for a post delivery check-up and I told her that Sam would only sleep on his tummy. She said there was a new study that said that just as many babies dies of sids while sleeping on their backs as on their stomachs, so it doesn't really matter.

Serenity


----------



## mumto6 (Aug 2, 2003)

I have always questioned the "back to sleep" campaign. My first five children all slept on their tummies from birth. My concern is that my babies would have to spit up in the middle of the night and gag on their backs. This happened a few times after nursing and thankfully I was right there to scoop them up and burp them. But what if a baby was in another room in a crib and nobody was there to get him if he vomits. This may be theoretical but there is something to be said for a mother's intuition. Our sixth child was a preemie (she is now one month old). The nurses at the hospital were really pushing the "back to sleep" thing...so I would put her on a side as a compromise. I do usually wait until my newborn can lift their head a little before I put them exclusively on their tummies. I have spent this last month having her sleep on my chest just so I could hear her breathe and comfort her. She loves it but I'm a little tired. Does anyone know of a baby bed that immitates the mother's breast?







We ordered a co-sleeper but she is so attached to me I don't know how she will manage without hearing my heartbeat. If I had to guess about the SIDS thing I would say it is linked to vaccinations. Also, I read somewhere that they are finding many of the "back to sleep" babies with the back of their heads flattened. I would tend to believe since my husband spent the first three months of his life in a crib, on his back in an orphanage.(poor little thing)The back of his head is flat as a pancake, he has to have his haircut a certain way to hide it.Well, enough of my two cents...I just think the "back to sleep thing" is just another way the government is trying to intervene in our personal lives and try to tell us how to raise our children..Listen to your heart...and listen to your baby..if mine could talk I believe they would say "PLEASE PUT ME ON MY TUMMY >>>MUMMY!!!"


----------



## lauraess (Mar 8, 2002)

the research done a number of years ago, as read in drSears baby book explains a number of factors considered and one thing I must say is there seems to be a misunderstanding among people and the sids issue. While sids is not completely understood studies that have been done show that the baby with sids does not struggle, cry or show anything outward that would even let someone know there was a problem. simply, it just happens. It has nothing to do with baby being able to turn head , it seems. the studies also show the connection between babies breathing room and the carbon dioxide being re-breathed. the factors of bfing and smoking while pregnant were also mentionable.

the study/ies that concluded that back was better are indicating that it's possibly going to reduce your babies chances but it is not the only factor to consider.

laura


----------



## Sustainer (Sep 26, 2002)

The study that I read (that didn't get much media attention) indicated a direct relationship between not breastfeeding and SIDS, and also a direct relationship between smoking and SIDS. There was no relationship between sleeping position and SIDS.

I also suspect that crib sleeping is a factor.

I put my baby down on her stomache or her side. She sleeps in our bed with us, on an organic cotton mattress. I breastfeed her, and no one in my house smokes. I do not worry about SIDS.


----------



## sugarmoon (Feb 18, 2003)

Someone on a list I'm on recently forwared a link to an article with a new theory about SIDS. This guy thinks that the babies who die of SIDS are dreaming of being in the womb, and the dream is so convincing that their body reverts to pre-birth function, thus, no need to breath.

who knows? But, I don't worry much about the tummy sleeping either.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

I have wondered about this too. Recently I attended a conference where one of the sessions (presented by a physician-researcher) was talking about infant attachment from an evolutionary perspective. He pointed to McKenna's research that mothers help regulate their babies' breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. He theorized that there may be a small percentage of 'vulnerable' infants out there who, when born, can't self-regulate their cardio-respiratory systems as well, and rely on maternal proximity to do so. When they are placed in a crib, they get into trouble.

Made sense to me. I wonder if more research will bear this out.

Carolyn


----------



## 1jooj (Apr 8, 2002)

I don't know how many infants die due to SIDS among N African indigenous, but I know they TIGHTLY swaddle infants and tend to lay them down on their sides...and most households have a STRICT "never alone" policy. For almost anyone, now that I think of it. I have never slept alone in anyone's home. Of course, babies are also bfed and worn all day every day, in or out, regardless of weather.

I just feel like we try to create such an artificial environment in the US in general. People buy brand new bedding (plastic covered mattresses) for babies, sit them in plastic seats most of the day, avoid holding them "too much," often feed artificial milk from plastic bottles, buy them plastic squeaking/beeping/flashing toys (rather than strap them on and create interaction), inject them with frightening substances in frightening amounts, etc., wrap their butts in plastic-and-chemical diapers, etc.

There are just so many cracks in our way of doing things, where trouble can seep in. Look at the increase in the number of vaxes babies get--especially when done "on schedule" (finished at 15 months!). Look at the sheer amount of plastic in our daily lives. Increased pollution for many. Less time outdoors. Etc. I think, as with most things, the picture is so much more complicated than we dare admit.

My ds, btw, hated tummy sleeping, so he slept on his back. He was a summer baby, and we have no a/c, so he was cooler on his back, I think.


----------



## LunaMom (Aug 8, 2002)

Mumto6 said,

Quote:

My concern is that my babies would have to spit up in the middle of the night and gag on their backs. This happened a few times after nursing and thankfully I was right there to scoop them up and burp them. But what if a baby was in another room in a crib and nobody was there to get him if he vomits. This may be theoretical but there is something to be said for a mother's intuition. Our sixth child was a preemie (she is now one month old). The nurses at the hospital were really pushing the "back to sleep" thing...so I would put her on a side as a compromise.
My dd was put to sleep on her back and never had a problem with gagging or choking on spit up. I had to change her sheets every day, so I know it was happening! She slept next to my bed in a bassinet, by the way.

But what you say about your preemie daughter disturbs me! My understanding is that only healthy full-term newborns are supposed to sleep on their backs, so your instincts were correct while the hospital nurses were wrong - thank goodness for your daughter's sake! I always heard that preemies should be placed on their sides - perhaps they lack the ability to turn their heads if they begin to spit up? Has this recommendation changed?

My dd's head never got that flattened look, probably because she didn't spend too much time on her back unless she was sleeping. The babies I've seen with flattened heads seem to spend a ton of time with their heads resting against hard surfaces - swings, car seats, etc. My dd sat in a bouncy seat sometimes, but I don't think the fabric put pressure on her head they way other types of "baby-holders" do, especially car seats...you've all seen how many babies spend a ton of time in those, even while awake and indoors!

I also know that the risk of SIDS suuposedly increases if a baby who normally sleeps on her back is suddenly placed on her tummy (at daycare, by a grandparent, whatever), so I wonder how many SIDS cases that are blamed on stomach sleeping are results of that situation, and if the baby was placed on her tummy all the time, would it not have happened.

At any rate, my heart goes out to anyone who loses a child this way...I can't even imagine how horrible that must be.


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

lauraess raises a very good point that i have often wondered about.

it seems often that SIDS and "safe crib sleeping" issues get mixed up. if a baby died because he was lying face down, could not move his head, and suffocated, that isn't SIDS. It's an accidental death. The cause is known: suffocation.

Similarly, thick bedding, fluffy blankets, stuffed toys, all the things that can suffocate a baby are also related to accidental death. Not SIDS.

SIDS is defined as death with no explanation. I know the theory is that there is no struggle, but honestly I question how anybody can know this unless they were there when it happened. Mind you, I also don't discount this description b/c it fits very well with the theory that SIDS is an arousal problem.

And why the peak at 2 to 4 months? Well, I know many people suspect vaccinations, but an alternative explanation could be that it matches some critical stage of neuronal development. While newborns are certainly more "helpless" than a 4 month old, the brain goes through such a remarkable phase of rapid growth during baby's first year that it wouldn't surprise me that the peak susceptibility for SIDS coincides with the development of a particular neuronal system or, more likely, during a stage where babies switch from a more primal, newborn mechanism to a more adult one.

I think SIDS is such a fascinating topic, but I think we're still a long way from "getting it". I admit I am also biased towards a hypothesis that points to unnatural sleep environment (ie. isolated sleep) as a causative factor. It just makes so much sense when we look at every other mammal on the planet and where their infants sleep (aquatic ones notwithstanding, lol).


----------



## pip (Apr 3, 2003)

AS someone wrote previously, my heart also goes out to anyone who has lost a child through this tradgedy. When I was expecting I spent a lot of time investigating, as here in New Zealand we have high SIDS rates. I think the theory of Dr. Sprott, a New Zealander who has been researching this but has been roundly discredited by our Safe Sleep campaign actually make total sense.

He links SIDS to gases emitted through a combination of fire retardant chemicals being 'eaten' by certain fungi, which emit poisonous gas. This would explain:

1)high sids rates after 1950ish(can't remember the exact date), whereas relatively unknown befire that time - the fire retardant chemicals were added to matresses after this date

2)high sids rates in New Zealand - v. humid, high fungi growth

3)higher sids rates for second babies, and even higher for third (again, can't remember the rates, but it's about double) - babies reusing the crib mattress, therefore higher rates of fungal spores each time

4)increase in sids after vaccinations - the body produces a slight fever, the heating up causes vigorous fungal growth leading to more gas creation

5)higher sids in boys ( I think 30% more than girls) - again related to faster metabolic rate and higher body temperate creating more gases

6)higher sids rates in non breastfeeding/ heavy smoking / drug use households - all these behaviours can be linked to socio - economic factors - generally more common in poorer households who would have greater chance of having a pre used mattress (maybe used by realtives babies and passed on ...again, more fungal spores)

Here is one link:

www.mercola.com/2000/nov/5/victory_over_sids.htm

but to me it all adds up. This would explain how back sleeping helps reduce the rate, but is not the total answer. From a mum whose baby would only sleep on his tum throughout the day which caused much anxiety!!

Incidentally there has not been a death on a CORRECTLY wrapped mattress in New Zealand, so weird as it feels, we have wrapped our baby's mattress. I put two layers of 100% cotton above the official mattress wrap (it MUST be the correct type of plastic!!), and don't use acrylic blankets because of the unknown fire retardants added.

I hope this has been useful to anyone who is interested. I don't wish to cause any worry or offence to anyone who believes differently, but to me it made sense, so I thought I would share!


----------



## lauraess (Mar 8, 2002)

PIP, wow, that really makes a lot of sense! so why is the sleep campaign discrediting him?
Laura


----------



## AutumnMoonfire (Dec 29, 2001)

I take a lot of heat for this, but I always place sleeping newborns on their sides because of the spitup factor...and UmmNuh's remark about never leaving babies alone also makes total sense.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by oceanbaby*
... I do remember reading that SIDS rates peak between 2-4 months, which is when babies start their vaccinations ..._










Wow.

Have just started reading this thread, am so floored that I never thought of this connection.









Will now read the rest of the thread.


----------



## pip (Apr 3, 2003)

Lauraess,
Sorry to not get back to this thread for a while....I think it deserves a bump up anyway because I see there is a new question by a mum feeling guilty about sidesleeping on the first page.

He has been discredited because he is quite a pushy personality, and I think he got the backs up of the plunket ( a group which looks after young babies' health here) by saying that 'back to sleep' was not the whole answer. The cot death campaign here rigorously advocates back sleeping, breastfeeding and no co-sleeping. Sprott was trying to find a logical explanation, and saying these things may help but not be the total answer. They wanted simplicity I think and decided he was a nutter.

He is very well qualified and a pretty smart man from what I've read (I know someone who know's someone....New Zealand is a small place!!)

Do a webserch...there's lots of qualified people who think he's onto something.

P.S. Sorry this is so long but I do think it's awful that new mums are made to feel so guilty. I had a refluxy baby, and was scared to put him on his tum or side, but also scared of him choking on his back. It's a no win situation and deserves more research IMO.


----------

