# Baby "sleep training" is a fast growing industry??



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Anyone else just catch CBS's Early show segment on "expert" sleep trainers??







I thought I was going to gag! And that poor baby...I tried so hard to not judge these parents but in the end I couldn't help myself.


----------



## sahmof2girls (Feb 9, 2005)

It is so crazy!!!! on another main stream board i post on....it is amazing how many mammas listen to everyword thier docs say about cio. I always put my opinion on it with my litte "no cio here" banner so hopefully they will see that you can't spoil poor little babies..... It is frusteratng


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Here's the text for the story that aired.
While on the air they encouraged viewers to email their thoughts.


----------



## Momma2LiamandTara (Nov 26, 2003)

i really hate this stuff. I also post on a mainstream board. Today i was reading about one lady her doc reccomended Ferber's book and then ezzo came up. Uggh! I try to post nicer alternatives like sears or elizabeth pantley. I just feel for those poor babies.


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Whoops! Thanks for moving this to the FB&N forum - I was so tee'd off this morning that I didn't think!


----------



## midstreammama (Feb 8, 2005)

I I worte a note to cbs addressing my concern about the article/story. That's so sad. I think if people knew that the family bed was so easy and everyone (usually) got a great night sleep then more people would do it.


----------



## darwinphish (Feb 13, 2005)

Oh, and did you notice step two of their little "training" program?

"2. Establish a routine: bath, bottle, book."

BOTTLE? So I guess FFing is part of a well-trained baby's life? It's SO much more convenient, afterall... as a low supply mama who's working like crazy to get baby OFF the bottle this just makes me crazy!

And the whole "NO TOUCHING" thing just makes my blood boil. It's a BABY. He's crying because he's alone and in our ancestors day his crying would keep him from being eaten by a wild animal. In his heart he knows, if you don't pick him up, he's going to be EATEN. That's just lovely.

I know I'm a'preachin' to the choir hear but I just needed to vent!

GRRRRR....


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Ugh. That's all I have to say. Just ugh.

And for those that post on mainstream boards, I hear you. I just got into one of those discussions on a board this week when a person said she didn't want to do CIO, and person after person came in and suggested CIO and sang it's praises. (My personal favorite is "Well, I use the No Cry Sleep Solution in conjunction with CIO and it worked wonders"...um, isn't CIO the total complete OPPOSITE of NCSS? You CAN'T use them in conjunction with eachother). And try suggesting that it's not natural for an infant to sleep 12 hours without getting hungry, thirsty, and lonely, and you get bashed because "those stupid APers never consider the mom. The baby isn't the most important part of the family". AHHHHHHHHH...why do I even go to those places!


----------



## Laurel (Jan 30, 2002)

AllyRae, we must visit the same board! At a mainstream board I visit, a mom said that she'd read NCSS and didn't like it because it didn't allow for CIO. Well, duh!! It's called "The NO CRY Sleep Solution"!


----------



## Ms. Frizzle (Jan 9, 2004)

A mainstream mama I know called me to get me to watch it. No thanks, lol


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

I hear all of you. Try dealing with a woman who swears she's AP, and wants to join your AP support group -- but also wants to sing the praises of Ferberizing and CIO. That's even worse, in my opinion. She swears up and down that CIO can be a "healthy part of attachment parenting."







I've told her that she could join, but that the group isn't the place to promote CIO methods -- as a result she's been harassing me with defensive, angry emails for months now. I'm sure the news program just makes her feel better about her choice and justified in her continual rants...


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

You must not pick up the baby??

wtf is up with that???

besides I can't figure out how to co-sleep and nurse at night without touching my babe--he's all over me most of the night, usually draped across me by morning...


----------



## Unreal (Dec 15, 2002)

okay...this is REALLY stupid..

a side link to a related story from that same page you posted Jesse....

don't they see how these two stories contradict each other??!!!







:







:







:







:







:







:







:







:


----------



## laprettygurl (Dec 22, 2004)

I post at a mainstream board too and got really attacked for my (gentle) beliefs. Argh. This is what bothers me the most:

"Parents have said, 'I would pay a million dollars if I could just have a decent night's sleep,'"

Uh, you gave up that right when you decided to have kids. Sorry.


----------



## FillingMyQuiver (Jul 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laprettygurl*
Uh, you gave up that right when you decided to have kids. Sorry.

AMEN mama!!! All I have to say about sleep training... uke I CANNOT imagine how traumatizing it is to be alone and crying and to only HEAR your parents voice every 15min. NOT to be touched or loved on!!! Give me a break!!! And then people wonder why their kids can't show affection when they get older


----------



## RosieTook (Sep 4, 2004)

CIO makes me sick to my stomach....perhaps moreso because that is how I was raised and I have ISSUES!!

The second link was a great article...









sick, sick, sick


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Here is my take on things. I think that 'sleep training' has become such a big industry b/c our society has no time for babies or children. Mom has to get up and get back to work, on with the show. Not to mention that she often doesn't have extended family around to help (and if she does have them around, they are usually off to work, etc too!). So it puts mom in a bind. She does have a physiological need for sleep, and this is being tossed out as the answer to her problem. We have a societal problem folks, so go easy on these moms. It's the best option they can see to their very real problem. AND thank G-d (or substitute your relivant power) that you learned otherwise!


----------



## Laurel (Jan 30, 2002)

I kind of agree with you Mom2six, but in the discussions I've read/been involved with on other boards about this topic, mom's need for sleep is the secondary part of the discussion. What I'm hearing about sleep training is that it's the baby who needs sleep, how all the nightwaking is unhealthy for baby because then you have a cranky, tired child all day long, etc. The sleep-training books are promoting this as not only "best" for baby but also as "absolutely necessary" for baby's health. If's mom's tiredness is mentioned, it's more incidental to the discussion. Now, I think that this focus on baby's so-called health is simply a way of deflecting attention from the real reason for getting baby to sleep through the night, which of course comes right back to what you said--mom wants to get a full night's sleep.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

All that being said, what they are saying is true - a baby that doesn't sleep (here I am talking about the baby, in his crib, that is up every few minutes or every hour) probably *will* be cranky. Where we disagree is what is the solution.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Oh - and I noticed that in the linked article, the couple they followed, both parents were MD's, an OB and a pediatric surgeon. I'm sorry, that bottle they are feeding baby looks for all the world to be formula. Anyway, I can see where nighttime parenting would be hard for a family of two physicians. I don't want a groggy MD treating me, thank you. But yes, making it 'all about the baby' is disengenuis. Baby needs to sleep, mommy needs to sleep, but not necessarily 12 hours straight alone in a crib or else it must be that baby has a 'disfunctional sleep pattern'. I just think it is a shame that there is a real need out there for info like in the 'no cry sleep solution' but people grasp the Ferber 'get your baby to sleep all night in a few days' quick fix rather than meeting the greater needs of their babies.


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Chava So great to see you again! How come no one is in chat anymore?









I reacted really emotionally to the story (can't you tell lol) and then started to think about 'why this is' the way it is in society. Well our western society at least. The parents in the original story were both Drs (ped surgeon and an OB) so naturally they had full schedules I'm sure. I did also feel that they were chosen for the piece as because this society worships the allopathic culture and we'd take it heart more about 'how they are raising their own baby'. If that makes sense.

Its not a family friendly workplace in the States. Maternity leave is laughable compared to forward thinking European countries, and paternity leave is rare much less paid for. Want to WOH and breastfeed your child? The mother has to take the extra steps and initiave most of the time to make it all work (not that its not worth it, but I'm all for anything that would make that easier as I once woh and breastfed and had to pump and carry the whole damned thing with me where ever I went lol)

So to sum it up, I think Laurel is right in that we're not used to thinking about the mother's needs so much as the baby's: I think ideally they should be equal. Heck mothers themselves place their needs secondary. Even I do it (forgetting to eat, going with out showers) Ok I'll close before I stop making sense. I thought this was worth repeating though

Quote:

It's the best option they can see to their very real problem. AND thank G-d (or substitute your relivant power) that you learned otherwise!
and

Quote:

The sleep-training books are promoting this as not only "best" for baby but also as "absolutely necessary" for baby's health
I take it all of these sleep-training books, Ferber and Ezzo among others haven't considered that nightwaking is normal and all the studies to back it up. I may wake up more than the ferbermom but overall I think I get more sleep b/c I spend less time awake. Just plug boob in and conk :LOL


----------



## velcromom (Sep 23, 2003)

I think it is so odd that tv stations feel fine about running a piece with advice that research shows is biologically inappropriate for babies, thus unhealthy and according to studies, can even increase the risk of SIDS. Maybe if they realized the research shows that nightwaking is normal and sleeping with mama is healthier, they'd see that advocating sleep training is sort of like saying it's ok to ditch carseats because they are such a hassle. Maybe we could ask them why they are comfortable airing such advice, wouldn't they refuse to tell parents to ditch carseats because of the issues of liablility and all that?

So why do they feel ok about telling parents to take an action that increases risk of SIDS? Let's ask them. Got a contact link?


----------



## lifetapestry (Apr 14, 2003)

I don't think that there is any substantial research that shows that sleep training is bad for infants. I do notice in the story that the parents believe there were benefits for the baby, "he is like a totally different child", is what I think they said. And I believe the parents if they say that sleeptraining was good for their child, just like I believe parents when they say that co-sleeping is best for their child. I do not believe in one-size-fits-all parenting, even though I feel that co-sleeping and extended bfing have been best for my child.

I do think that some babies can have sleep problems that can be resolved with sleep training -- in the case of the couple in the article, it sounded like the problem was that he wasn't getting enough sleep and that the sleep training helped him get the rest that he needed. If I thought that sleep training would help my child in this situation, I would probably try it to. I don't think that CIO is always "bad"; I think that it might work for some children without any ill effect in some situations. Not my child, though-- who at 3 1/2 is a good sound co-sleeper now without any "training", unless you consider nightweaning at 18 months some sort of training.

I do wish that they would include some anti-success stories in these kinds of articles, though, so parents could be thoughtful about whether or not it might work for their child. I wish they'd contact some of the parents I know, like the ones who did sleep training but now cosleep years later because they think it caused attachment problems in their kids, and the parents whose children can now fall asleep "on their own", but go completely nuts when they travel and the routine and/or bed is different. Or how they are a slave to the "on your own" nap and can't have fun family time on the weekends because the kids go nuts if they don't have the same sleep ritual every day of the week. I wish that the sleep "trainers" would follow up with these families and see if there have been any longer-term repercussions in sleep or other areas since the children were "trained."

Karla


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifetapestry*
I don't think that there is any substantial research that shows that sleep training is bad for infants.
Karla


As far as I can tell, none exists.

People here always point to a link that is about some study showing that cortisol levels rise. But I personally pulled that study and the authors of that study fully admits that there is NO EVIDENCE that there is any correlation to any long term harm and even states in peer reivew that the rise may be statiscially insignificant or potentially benefical at those levels.

Moreover, as I recall the study also miserably failed to differntiate crying in arms or in a car seat.

If anyone knows of any true good studies I would love to see them!


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

As someone who just completed a pilot study on cortisol levels and CIO, I can tell you that 1) in the nonhuman primate literature, there are many many many studies with very robust results showing that even one one-hour separation of infant and mama results in profound, long-lasting, and detrimental rises in the infant's cortisol levels. The babies grow to be adults with different behavioral phenotypes (less assertive, more fearful, less friendly), and the physical structure of certain areas of their brains are negatively affected (the hippocampus in particular, which affects memory and cognition, among other things). Their cortisol levels, even as adults, are much higher than infants who were not temporarily taken from their mothers. There are quite a few of these studies, they all point to the same thing.

2) My own research, conducted on humans, sampled saliva (to get cortisol) from kids aged 4-6 years of age. One group had kids who cried it out as infants, the other group had continuous co-sleepers. I have yet to write up the results, since I am expecting my second baby any day now and have had barely any energy to drag myself through each day. I can tell you that, looking at the raw data, there does indeed appear to be a significant difference in those kids who went through CIO and those kids who coslept.

This is a pilot study, designed to give me enough info to run a much more thorough, long-term, expensive study later on. Don't know if I'll ever run the study, since I'll have two kids to chase around and I don't want to put either of them in daycare.

As a scientist who thoroughly researched the potential effects of CIO, had to defend a potential thesis prospectus in front of ten Harvard professors whose job it was to grill me on every single detail (I passed), and who spent months pouring over all the relevant literature on maternal presence (and lack of presence) and its effect on infant human, nonhuman primate, and other mammals' relevant biological systems -- I can say that I believe, 100%, that CIO does indeed have long-term effects (detrimental) on the biology and psychology of children.

The reason you won't find a clear-cut, perfect human study is that you can't run the experiments on humans that you can on nonhumans (can't make them CIO and then look at their brains, etc.). But the analogous studies have been done, and done very well, in nonhuman primates -- there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe anything would be any different in humans.

Forgive my very imperfect spelling, I am bone tired and sooo ready for this baby to be born!


----------



## darwinphish (Feb 13, 2005)

Trish, how awesome! I'm a medical anthropologist and I'd love to read your paper once you've had the chance to get your data together! If you have the energy, would you mind telling me how you have isolated CIO from other confounding variables (associated parenting styles, FF vs BF, etc)? It sounds like a fascinating, and important, study. I hope you get it prominently published when life has settled down again - it's very important for the ped-world to get exposed to this!

As an anthropologist I did look at nonhuman primates when making parenting choices. It is just not in a primate's nature to sleep in isolation! However my DD does seem to sleep much better in her mini cosleeper than tucked under my arm - it's not what I'd planned but I'm going with it - and of course there is someone right there the minute she wakes up. See - I think the biggest thing is to be RESPONSIVE rather than fixed in your parenting choices. There is no way to practice CIO and be a responsive parent!

I think the social problems are the root of the cause - both in lack of support systems and in learned individualism/selfishness. How much easier would nightime parenting be if grandma or sis was there to take a shift, gelping babe get back to sleep after you fed 'em???

And here's what I mean by selfishness: When I posted my BFing difficulties on a mainstream board, I was encouraged to switch entirely to formula because "a happy mommy makes a happy baby". I hear this phrase repeated over and over again in mainstream discussions and media and noone ever disputes it. It may be true to the extent that Mom needs to be rested enough to be sane, and well-fed so she can BF, and supported enough to support her baby, but the phrase is used to justify what I see as selfish parenting choices - CIO, switching to FF 'cause BF is "icky", etc. It seems like a pat phrase used to justify just about anything. Mom wants to finish her soap while baby cries in the other room during "naptime"? No problem. A happy mommy makes a happy baby, afterall.


----------



## lifetapestry (Apr 14, 2003)

Well, I have a Ph.D. in psychology and there are two giant obvious flaws in this research:

1. The non-human research has some generalizability problems -- first and foremost, unless you can physiologically track changes in cortisol levels to a specific negative outcome, I find it very uncompelling that changes simply exist. In addition, there is little evidence that whatever negative impact cortisol levels may have in non-humans is the same for humans. Using non-human research to argue that x, y, or z is true for humans is rarely "proof."

2. Your research is correlational, it does not study cause and effect. Even assuming that you have correctly sorted children into "CIO" and "continuous co-sleeping" categories and that those categories are meaningful in real life, different cortisol levels (which at this point, you don't even know if they are statistically significant, or what the effect size might be) between these two groups do not mean that the CIO or co-sleeping caused the changes in these cortisol levels. I sincerely doubt that you were able to find children and families who were alike in every other way BUT for the fact that they either CIO or co-slept. Thus, who knows what the explanations are for whatever differences might exist.

And as someone who used to be ABD and with all due respect to the Ph.D. process, no study has any persuasive power until it has been subjected to the rigors of peer review and is published in a reputable journal. I hope you are able to do that at some point to add to the literature in this area.

Karla


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellis Herr*
As someone who just completed a pilot study on cortisol levels and CIO, I can tell you that 1) in the nonhuman primate literature, there are many many many studies with very robust results showing that even one one-hour separation of infant and mama results in profound, long-lasting, and detrimental rises in the infant's cortisol levels. The babies grow to be adults with different behavioral phenotypes (less assertive, more fearful, less friendly), and the physical structure of certain areas of their brains are negatively affected (the hippocampus in particular, which affects memory and cognition, among other things). Their cortisol levels, even as adults, are much higher than infants who were not temporarily taken from their mothers. There are quite a few of these studies, they all point to the same thing.

2) My own research, conducted on humans, sampled saliva (to get cortisol) from kids aged 4-6 years of age. One group had kids who cried it out as infants, the other group had continuous co-sleepers. I have yet to write up the results, since I am expecting my second baby any day now and have had barely any energy to drag myself through each day. I can tell you that, looking at the raw data, there does indeed appear to be a significant difference in those kids who went through CIO and those kids who coslept.

This is a pilot study, designed to give me enough info to run a much more thorough, long-term, expensive study later on. Don't know if I'll ever run the study, since I'll have two kids to chase around and I don't want to put either of them in daycare.

As a scientist who thoroughly researched the potential effects of CIO, had to defend a potential thesis prospectus in front of ten Harvard professors whose job it was to grill me on every single detail (I passed), and who spent months pouring over all the relevant literature on maternal presence (and lack of presence) and its effect on infant human, nonhuman primate, and other mammals' relevant biological systems -- I can say that I believe, 100%, that CIO does indeed have long-term effects (detrimental) on the biology and psychology of children.

The reason you won't find a clear-cut, perfect human study is that you can't run the experiments on humans that you can on nonhumans (can't make them CIO and then look at their brains, etc.). But the analogous studies have been done, and done very well, in nonhuman primates -- there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe anything would be any different in humans.

Forgive my very imperfect spelling, I am bone tired and sooo ready for this baby to be born!


Would LOVE to see your study!


----------



## darwinphish (Feb 13, 2005)

Karla, nonhuman primates are pretty good analogues of humans! And the connection between cortisol levels and phisiological stress in humans has been pretty well established. Even if there are many confounding variables there are statistical methods to remove the noise. Not to say that such a study would be definitive, but it would give other researchers a lot of food for thought, and that's important.


----------



## Laurel (Jan 30, 2002)

JesseMomme said:


> "So to sum it up, I think Laurel is right in that we're not used to thinking about the mother's needs so much as the baby's:"
> 
> Just to clarify, that's not exactly what I said.
> 
> ...


----------



## velcromom (Sep 23, 2003)

http://www.nd.edu/~jmckenn1/lab/

A very helpful link.

I love scientific resources, but I must say that it is really sad that we must spend years of research to convince parents that what anyone can plainly see is true. Unanswered crying obviously does have negative effects that one can observe both immediately and often in the day or days following the episode/s. It's amazing that we have to study hormone levels to try to prove it to parents. Whether it has effects that last years or not is an equally astounding question. I'm not saying it isn't important to provide the answers, once we have gotten to a point that parents are so desperate or out of touch with thier common sense or influenced by cultural beliefs or whatever it is that lead them to the question, it clearly needs to be addressed. I guess I'm just commisserating with the OP in amazement that things have gotten so off track that parents can look at a screaming child alone in a room and wonder whether it's negative to put them through that.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

i know many moms who have practiced CIO. they are loving, gentle, devoted, and intelligent women. they adore their children and would die for them in a heartbeat. and they believe that they are helping their children by practicing CIO. they believe that it is in their child's best interest, that they will learn to self-soothe, that they will be happier because they can sleep for long stretches. none of them have made the decision to CIO because they're selfish or cruel. none of them enjoyed doing it. none of them are lazy or unwilling to make sacrifices in the name of parenthood. CIO was HARD for them to do. they cried while their children cried. they did it because they were told by "experts" and were convinced from all of the literature out there right now that it is the right thing to do. All of them fought maternal instincts and opted for the difficult choice of CIO because they thought that it was best for their children, as difficult and painful for them it was. all of them have loved their children beyond words the whole time.


----------



## lifetapestry (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *darwinphish*
Karla, nonhuman primates are pretty good analogues of humans! And the connection between cortisol levels and phisiological stress in humans has been pretty well established. Even if there are many confounding variables there are statistical methods to remove the noise. Not to say that such a study would be definitive, but it would give other researchers a lot of food for thought, and that's important.

Sorry Liz, I think it's a very debatable point whether nonhuman primate research can be generalized to humans. And, sure, there is a statistical correlation between cortisol levels and physiological stress. But, yet, none of my WBV has ever included testing my son's cortisol level, nor has my doctor ever checked my cortisol level in 20+ years of checkups. There is certainly a vague possibility that higher cortisol levels may lead to physiological stress, but physiological stress per se isn't a negative outcome. A negative outcome is a higher incidence of disease, death, dysfunction, mental illness, etc etc etc.

And confounding variables can only be statistically removed if they can be identified and quantified. Very unlikely in a correlational study where the number of differences between the children in each group is probably huge.

If this study meets peer review standards and is published in a legitimate scientific journal, then it can give researchers some food for thought. But until then, it just sounds like advocacy science to me, or just another "study" that advocates can point to and use to condemn parents who make different choices than they do.

It does always crack me up on this board, though, that there are so many threads that run around the theme of "why doesn't anybody respect my (alternative) parenting choices" and then dozens of other threads condemning friends and family and neighbors and whomever for putting their child in a stroller, using formula, or choosing sleep training. This "I deserve respect but I won't give it to anybody else" attitude makes it difficult to have real conversations about parenting here. And using badly flawed "research" to waive around and insist that we have "proof" that we are right doesn't sit well with me either.

Obviously people come to this board because they find support and information for their own parenting choices. I am very comfortable with my choices, but I am definately uncomfortable with this insatiable community need to make our choices the only ones that are "right" for children or families.

Karla


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

please keep in mind, though, Karla...that this is someone's own graduate research that you're lambasting.


----------



## lifetapestry (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *michelemiller*
please keep in mind, though, Karla...that this is someone's own graduate research that you're lambasting.

Um, pointing out flaws in research is not "lambasting". It is a perfectly legitimate thing to criticize a study that has been OFFERED UP by the author as evidence or proof of something. If she offers it up as evidence of something, she should be prepared to have people make legitimate critical points that perhaps it is not such great proof.

Graduate student or not, it is part of the world of academia to be criticized. Actually, graduate students are typically criticized more than those who are post-school professionals. If you want to move beyond graduate school, you learn to accept criticism and do your work in a better way. I haven't don't anything improper here, and I don't really appreciate being "scolded" as if I have. You're out of line in trying to "correct" me.

Karla


----------



## darwinphish (Feb 13, 2005)

Michele - I apologize that my last post was so scathing toward moms that CIO. I too have known many loving moms who have CIO because they think it's the right thing. If I didn't have such a gut reaction to CIO I'd have acknowledged that initially- with my point being that our larger societal values allow us to justify things that are painful for both mom and baby.

Karla, your points are all valid but we'd really have to look at the reasearch to know what the data say. You're assuming it's advocacy research but haven't actually seen the data. And I said primates were "pretty good", not perfect, analogues. I was not saying that primate studies can be generalized to humans, only that primate research can inform the direction of human studies.

OT: In my own dissertation research I showed that there was a correlation between declining diet quality and exposure to food marketing materials for kids in 3 countries with a rapidly westernizing population. Were there confounding variables? Sure. Can I assert causation? No. Is it advocacy? Sort of! But not to the point that it would affect how I presented the data! My own "advocacy" research earned the highest maks from my committee at Oxford, which included an epidemiologist and 2 professors of clinical nutrition. Advocacy does not always equal bad research, and the social sciences would be a much more lively and productive field if more people realized this.

If social scientists were to truly assess CIO vs co-sleeping, they would need to conduct a longitudinal study with both qualitative and quantitative elements. It's my hope that student research like Trish's will pique the interest of major research institutions and allow the funding for this kind of study, the same way I hope that my research might spawn a study of corporate influence on worldwide dietary change.

Just because a study design isn't perfectly controlled doesn't mean it has no merit.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Karla,

No scientist, myself or any other respectable person -- can claim that any of their research "proves" anything. You never say that. You say that you are offering up evidence that supports your hypothesis. And yes, of course -- criticism is welcome, because it helps tighten up the eventual paper! I have no problem with your attempts at pointing out potential flaws.

Regarding correlations -- you're right, correlations do not mean causations. However,everything that is out there that has to do with humans -- medical, psychological (ESPECIALLY psychological!!), biological, etc. -- is mainly based on correlations and can NEVER control for every confounding variable. You do the best you can, and you state your methods in the methods section of the paper, and you admit the weaknesses of the study in the discussion section of the paper.

As for discounting nonhuman research...I take it you don't take medicine? Almost everything out there goes through a testing process on animals before it's ever tried on people. You just can't discount the value of animal research when if comes to biology and anthropology, as a prologue to discovering something similar (if not identical) in humans. Much of the psychological research at Harvard is done on monkeys. What's the point, if they're not trying to draw analogies to humans (and they always are)? Animal research is a given aspect of science. That data is included in every published scientific paper in the background section of the write-up...it makes your argument and evidence that even more compelling. The HPA axis (responsible for cortisol production) of nonhuman primates is an EXTREMELY good analogue of the human HPA axis.

As an aside, I have to tell you that high cortisol levels precede almost every disease out there (in humans), which makes sense given what high cortisol levels do to various parts of the brain. Changes of the brain in humans after high levels of cortisol exposure IS in fact documented it's the same as in nonhuman primates. This data is quite robust. Absence of mom in humans leading to high levels of temporary cortisol is also already established. What I did was hopefully provide some insight into the long-lasting effects on the HPA axis. Meaning, that cortisol levels are affected in the long-term, not just the short-term.

I agree, this pilot study is...a pilot study. Which means it was designed to give me an idea of whether this issue was worth looking into further, to do a more complete, long-term study where variables could be much more controlled for. When this paper gets published, it will not "prove" anything...but it should be enough to get more involved studies going which will be more long-term and thorough.

My belief that CIO harms kids comes from a long look at all the related literature, study of the HPA access and what elevated levels of cortisol does to it and the brain, and what different types of behavior seems to result when changes to certain areas of the brain are made. It's what prompted this study -- my study in and of itself does not "prove" anything -- no study EVER "proves" anything -- but I would bet you a milion dollars that 20 years from now there will be so many published studies in this area that CIO will be on its way out of vogue.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

PS -- yes, I agree with the pp that longitudinal studies are needed. My prospectus was a longitudinal study that would have followed 100 moms over the course of a year (newborns to 1 year olds) and tracked every single variable as best I possibly could. That's the best anyone can do. I would have looked at brain structure (noninvasive brain scans), temperament, cognition, memory, parenting varialbes such as when and how often they coslept, etc., diaries of mothers, questionnaires, etc. THAT'S what needs to be done. But it's an expensive and lengthy process. I have all the collaborations in place, but needed some initial interesting data to get a green light from potential funding sources. The pilot study's results would most likely have gotten me the funding for the larger study. However, of course, now I have the dillema of having two small kids and NO desire to put them in daycare...so I'm not sure I can do the study after all.

But it should pique others' interests enough to get others going! That's the goal. And if a more thorough study find no correlations whatsoever (highly unlikely, IMO), then I'll still be happy that it was all thoroughly investigated!


----------



## Alstrameria (Sep 8, 2002)

For me CIO always breaks down to this: Can I pick the baby up? No? What if his foot is caught in the bars? What if he needs to be changed? What if the sheet has come loose in the crib? Those things are ok? So, what *can't* I pick him up for? _Just crying? No reason?_ How do I know it's nothing?

There's no friggin' way I'm taking the chance that *I* have thought of everything, that *I* know everything that _could_ be wrong and have judged these reasons insufficient, and will withhold comfort.

Also, I don't understand how a person can think that co-sleeping/family bed is "wrong" but that CIO is acceptable.


----------



## Charles Baudelaire (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllyRae*
"those stupid APers never consider the mom. The baby isn't the most important part of the family".





















































Ooh, when I hear sentiments like that I just want to explode. The only thing they have going for them is their honesty: in THEIR houses, at least, the baby clearly ISN'T the most important part of the family.

But maybe that baby SHOULD be.

Selfish, selfish,selfish, selfish, selfish. Why do selfish people even have children? I have a friend who practices AP -- organic this, no preservatives that, bf for over 3 years, etc., but when I suggested to her that when you have a child _you stop being the most important person in the universe,_ (if you ever were, of course







), and there was the telephone equivalent of a blank stare, like all I was saying was







and she just DID NOT get it.

She didn't do CIO, though. She co-slept because she can't stand it when her daughter cries. Not in a good way, like, "It breaks my heart to hear her cry," but more like, "She's such an irritating pain in the butt if I don't."

Nice. Really nice.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
As far as I can tell, none exists.

People here always point to a link that is about some study showing that cortisol levels rise. But I personally pulled that study and the authors of that study fully admits that there is NO EVIDENCE that there is any correlation to any long term harm and even states in peer reivew that the rise may be statiscially insignificant or potentially benefical at those levels.

Moreover, as I recall the study also miserably failed to differntiate crying in arms or in a car seat.

If anyone knows of any true good studies I would love to see them!

Well, firsthand, I witnessed the results of heart rate and crying. My son had to go to the hospital because he was ill. When he was laying in my arms, his heartrate was 150 or so. When he was layed on the hospital bed while the nurse checked his temperature, he began crying very loudly. She wouldn't let me pick him up and let him sit there screaming...his heartrate was 210 at this point (he had a pulse monitor on during the entire ordeal.

Read this...
Nelson, J. K. (1998). The meaning of crying based on attachment theory. Clinical Social Work Journal, 26(1), 9-22.


----------



## lifetapestry (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellis Herr*
but I would bet you a milion dollars that 20 years from now there will be so many published studies in this area that CIO will be on its way out of vogue.

Trish,

I already have my Ph.D. (and, in fact, am 12 years past it), so I'm well aware of the research process and what data and evidence means.

I would take your bet, but I think it would be hard to collect on. There are so many families who do this routinely through more than one child that I sincerely doubt that any study, from Harvard or elsewhere, is going to change their minds.

I know quite a few families who sleep trained their kids, and it never resulted in the kids crying for more than a few days. Their kids go to sleep peacefully and even though everything might be wonky on vacation, I don't see enough crying happening over a substantial period of time to make any long term changes in cortisol levels or brain structures. Which leads me to believe that if there are any differences between kids, that those difference have nothing to do with CIO and instead may be due to something else within the child's physiological disposition or life experience. Of course, because these studies will always be correlational, it's also possible that the cortisol levels and other physiological indexes were higher in CIO to begin with. Perhaps parents are more willing to engage in sleep training when their children are particularly bad sleepers, and perhaps children with higher levels of cortisol (i.e. more "stressed") are worse sleepers than other kids, and so their parents do CIO with them.

I don't have have any trouble believing that CIO *can* be harmful, but observing the children that I know about how it is implemented, I'm skeptical that any gigantic main effect, or harm, in the long run, for all children. It might be that there will be studies in the future that demonstrate this and I'd certainly be interested in seeing them. But until those studies have gone through the scientific review process of peer review, they don't count.

Karla


----------



## Kristine (Sep 26, 2003)

First of all, we all know that many neuroses are traced back to childhood trauma. Crying out for your parents because you *need them* and having them not respond is something that you will probably remember at least in the most primitive sense. Abandonment is a primal fear.

I'm not even going to get into a serious debate about psychology since it's primarily subjective and there are numerous schools and psychological models. As far as psychological models go, the one thing we know for sure is that sometimes treatments work. And other times they don't and no one really knows for certain if any underlying theory is the correct one or is responsible for any given patient's results. It's *all* correlative.

I read a wonderful summation of responding to a baby's cries that was absolutely logical and am going to share it. Imagine that you've been abducted by aliens and taken to a distant planet and are surrounded by others who don't speak your language. Now imagine that two of these strangers are put in charge of looking after your needs. You are entirely dependent on them for everything. Hunger, thirst, and reassurance that you are safe. Now imagine that you are thirsty or need some support of whatever kind, but your two guardians ignore your cries for help. You have no way to get them to understand your needs, and they ignore your pleas and there is no way to convey to them what you desperately want. So now you have another problem, and that is that you feel completely helpless in this world and come to realize that you can't depend on your guardians, or anybody for that matter, to meet your needs.

Of course most CIO advocates say it only takes a few days of screaming. Their babies quickly realize it's a waste of time and they're not going to get their needs met anyway. Their parents are their first experience of life on this swirling globe, and if their needs are ignored from the start, why else would they think anything would change?? If I put my hand near a cookie jar and was repeatedly slapped for a few hours each day, I'd probably give up too. What does that prove? That I don't want the cookies anymore or that I know it's useless to fight back?

I don't want anybody to even bother telling me that this doesn't affect babies, because if they are, they are deluding themselves. Then again, most of us delude ourselves on a daily basis, so nothing shocks me.

Also, why is it in cultures where children are carried constantly that children don't cry on the scale that everybody is talking about here? Could it be that their needs are being met and so they're actually happy? Sure, everybody's temperament is different and that starts when they are babies. However, and this is a big however, that doesn't mean that because some babies might have a more sensitive temperament that they should be allowed to cry it out. If anything, exactly the opposite!

If people want their lives to be uninterrupted by the sound of babies crying or put out in any way, they should continue on with their lives already in progress. Parenting is a 24 hour job and if doctors can be on call 24 hours a day for strangers, the least parents can do would be to show their own flesh and blood the same respect.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kristine*

I'm not even going to get into a serious debate about psychology since it's primarily subjective and there are numerous schools and psychological models.

True true true...I just receive my master's and most of my research has been in Attachment...the attachment theory shows the harm and consequences that can come from ignoring cues. But then you have Freud that blames everything on your mother, biopsych that blames it on chemicals, and behavioral psych that blames it on reinforcers...


----------



## thoesly (Dec 23, 2003)

I never thought that I would be so judgmental of sleep training/CIO. I always thought I could say "whatever works for the family" and be done with it, even though I coslept with all of my kids. But now I am in a serious disagreement with a SIL over this very issue. And I realize it isn't because of this one issue so much as the attitude toward the child. Instead of the child being respected as a human being with needs just as valid as an adult's, the child is regarded as an object to be dealt with or a pet to be trained. Instead of being revered as a treasure worthy of a long-term commitment, the child is regarded as an inconvenience whose worst flaws can be "cured" in a two-week quick-fix. I do know that many people practice sleep-training thinking that it is best for the child, and I understand why they think that -- I read all the big names (Ferber, Weissbluth, Mindell, etc) when my oldest was a baby so I know the mainstream messages that ring loudly. But since this is a practice that violates the foundation of respect and love that I believe is crucial between a parent and a child, I can't help but condemn it. I am working hard at not condemning the parent along with it, though.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

"I know quite a few families who sleep trained their kids, and it never resulted in the kids crying for more than a few days. Their kids go to sleep peacefully and even though everything might be wonky on vacation, I don't see enough crying happening over a substantial period of time to make any long term changes in cortisol levels or brain structures. I don't have have any trouble believing that CIO *can* be harmful, but observing the children that I know about how it is implemented, I'm skeptical that any gigantic main effect, or harm, in the long run, for all children."

Karla,

No offense...but how do you know there wasn't enough crying to make any substantial changes? Cortisol levels skyrocket when an infant cries and cannot make any contact with the mother. SKYROCKETS. Night after night of extremely high cortisol levels -- or even just one night -- may be enough to cause some structural damage within the hippocampus. We don't know exactly in humans (but we do in nonhuman primates!!), that's what the study, and future studies, need to get at. But again, controlled studies have been done in nonhuman primates. And I'm sorry, you just can't dismiss that data.

This isn't something you can "see" by looking at the kids you know. It would mean a higher susceptibility to a) psychological disorders such as despression, b) not being able to reach their full potential in the cogintion department, and/or c) being more susceptible to disease in general. You can't look at the kids and think that since they didn't sprout three heads, or that they don't look unhappy, that CIO seems to have not caused any damage. You have to look at their biology -- such as cortisol levels and brain structure.

There continue to be plenty of peer-reviewed papers (going back at least 10-15 years), on the effects of long-term elevated cortisol and behavior in nonhuman primates. There are peer reviewed papers on temporary elevated cortisol and behavior in humans, and on disease. The papers you insist you need are there. The only link that remains to be published is LONG-TERM cortisol effects after CIO in infants. Which, I feel, my study contributes to.

I'm glad you've had your Ph.D. for 12 years, especially in psychology. Then you know that almost everything out there -- again, ESPECIALLY in psychological research -- is based on correlations. If you're going to discount one study because it's correlational, then you need to also discount almost every psychology paper -- published and unpublished -- out there.

Absolutely, getting published makes your paper that much more legitimate, and is a vital step in the scientific process. Of course! But just to make a point...I've read a lot of peer-reviewed articles that are total crap. There are a lot of published papers out there that anyone can rip holes in, they got published becasue all the editors knew the authors, or that the author is already well-known, or that the topic fit in with the politics of the editorial board at that particular moment. And there are many studies that don't get published because they may be politically incorrect (such as, the effects o daycare on kids). So just as a side note, don't put too much faith in a paper just because it got published. Scrutinize the methods for yourself. And look at who the authors are, and who the editors are, and know their politics and how it did or did not influence the publication of that particular paper. Because unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, science (in particular the publication process) is almost never devoid of politics.


----------



## Kristine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellis Herr*

I'm glad you've had your Ph.D. for 12 years, especially in psychology. Then you know that almost everything out there -- again, ESPECIALLY in psychological research -- is based on correlations. If you're going to discount one study because it's correlational, then you need to also discount almost every psychology paper -- published and unpublished -- out there.


----------



## mama24-7 (Aug 11, 2004)

I just sent CBS News a message and asked them to read the Australian Assoc. for Infant Mental Health's position paper on controlled crying or CIO. http://www.aaimhi.org/documents/posi...led_crying.pdf I doubt it will do any good since I've never even gotten an auto response when writing to one of these things, but maybe, just maybe, someone there will read it and decide against it for their children.

Sus


----------



## lifetapestry (Apr 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellis Herr*
I'm glad you've had your Ph.D. for 12 years, especially in psychology. Then you know that almost everything out there -- again, ESPECIALLY in psychological research -- is based on correlations. If you're going to discount one study because it's correlational, then you need to also discount almost every psychology paper -- published and unpublished -- out there.

You are simply wrong and clearly uneducated about research in the social sciences. Correlational studies are common, that is sure. But there are also tons of experimental studies, observational studies, psychophysiological studies, and longitudinal studies that do not rely on the kinds of very flawed data that your study and similar studies do. So, no, I don't have to dismiss an entire discipline because some studies are correlational. And your correlational study doesn't look any better because you made this kind of argument.

No do I dismiss correlational studies as a matter of routine. What I do routinely dismiss are small correlational studies whose purpose appears to be advocacy science. I do not believe that public policy should be based on these studies. I suppose if anti-CIO zealots want to use this kind of work to argue that CIO is bad, then more power to them. But I sincerely doubt that anybody in the position to make changes in public policy will find that the research (though perfectly adequate for advocacy purposes) can not stand up to scientific rigor.

I think this area is a lot more complex than anybody on this board is willing to acknowledge. This whole thread was started because there seems to be a lot of pro-CIO information out there, from legitimate professionals like pediatricians. And we don't really know where the line is between normal infant/toddler nightwaking and children with sleep problems that need to be addressed in some way. And "CIO" does occur in different ways with different parents, and different children respond behaviorally in different ways to the process. I do believe that CIO can be negative for children physiologically, but I also believe that poor sleep can be negative for children as well. The reports of parents who used some version of CIO and report on the positive benefits for their children cannot be discounted.

I totally believe that parents should be more thoughtful, and more information about the potential negative side effects of CIO should be available. Unfortunately, every time some one tries to report on the actual research, they distort it to make it fit with their advocacy, rather than reporting what is accurate, or failing to make note of the significant limitations of the research. If accurate, fact-based information was available on both sides, then parents could make an informed choice about whether the potential benefits of CIO are worth the potential negative or side effects.

That's all. I've said my piece. I have no further business here.

Karla


----------



## velcromom (Sep 23, 2003)

Mama 24-7, I like that Australian paper. It says something when a country's mental health professionals collectively denounce a practice.

The fact that scientific knowledge is sometimes reported with a slant is often used to dismiss scientific findings in general. I like to look at who is going to profit, KWIM? Like the study that reported negative findings re: cosleeping being sponsored by an organization that manufactures cribs. Conflicts of interest like that are red flags to me, makes me want to look deeper.

thoesly said:
it isn't because of this one issue so much as the attitude toward the child. Instead of the child being respected as a human being with needs just as valid as an adult's, the child is regarded as an object to be dealt with or a pet to be trained. Instead of being revered as a treasure worthy of a long-term commitment, the child is regarded as an inconvenience whose worst flaws can be "cured" in a two-week quick-fix. I do know that many people practice sleep-training thinking that it is best for the child, and I understand why they think that -- I read all the big names (Ferber, Weissbluth, Mindell, etc) when my oldest was a baby so I know the mainstream messages that ring loudly. But since this is a practice that violates the foundation of respect and love that I believe is crucial between a parent and a child, I can't help but condemn it.
















That is exactly why I don't need to wait for those non-biased studies to be published.


----------



## Momtwice (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifetapestry*
I am very comfortable with my choices, but I am definately uncomfortable with this insatiable community need to make our choices the only ones that are "right" for children or families.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifetapestry*
I do not believe that public policy should be based on these studies. I suppose if anti-CIO zealots want to use this kind of work to argue that CIO is bad, then more power to them.

Wow. Just wow.

If someone paints me with the broad brush of "insatiable zealot" because I believe that science will increasingly support the practice of compassion, it's hard to be impressed by their arguments.


----------



## Dal (Feb 26, 2005)

What a fascinating discussion. I feel privileged to be able to







: and inject my own ideas into the mix.

Science is replete with subjectivism. There is no such thing as a value-neutral scientific study, however much its backers and makers insist to the contrary. Because some work is more obviously advocacy-oriented than others does not make it more subjective or biased. We're all advocates of what we believe, whatever that may be, and tend to see what we are looking for rather than what we do not expect or want to find. Topics do not choose themselves. Even the act of choosing a topic and an approach is value-laden.

That being said, I don't agree that the substantial subjective element of scientific studies is necessarily fatal or that it diminishes the value of work that is well done. I fully accept the very high possibility that inflicting CIO on a baby is highly traumatic for her or him and that it can and often does cause damage to that child. I certainly would not discount primate studies. We are great apes, after all.

I very much like the phrase "inflicting CIO" on babies (and variants of it). I think something like that should be used in some of the literature as how things are said is a very powerful way to shape and alter thought. Perhaps it already is used?


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Karla,

I welcome academic debate, but I do object to being told I am "clearly wrong and uneducated." That statement would never have come from a fellow respectable academic. As someone who has won the NSF Graduate Fellowship, the Jacob Javits Fellowship, a couple of grants and a Merit Award at Harvard -- and as someone who has participated in the peer review process of scientific journals (I've been a peer in a couple of peer reviews) -- as someone who is published -- and as someone who got into and was doing very well at Harvard -- I am not in the least uneducated.

I don't want to participate in the mud-throwing that I feel you have started with that accusation, which I feel went beyond academic debate...I will just repeat that the vast majority of studies on humans -- observational, experimental, even longitudinal -- depend to a large extent on correlations. You can't get around it. The simple reason is that you cannot run on humans the kind of controlled studies that you can on nonhumans. Specifically, you can't control all the variables in a human being's life, then run an experiment, and then cut up the person's brains to see the immediate effects of the experiment. Etc. You've GOT to heavily depend on correlations. You do the absolute best you can to control for all the known confounding variables, of course. But when it's all said and done, and despite your best efforts, there will still be variables you simply could not control for. Anyone who claims any differently is selling you something.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, for everyone to read and understand, in response to your last post --

Pediatricians are NOT legitimate experts in CIO!!!! Far from it! They do not study anything having to do with sleep, infant crying, the HPA axis, ANYTHING related to this issue. This stuff is not touched upon in medical school or in residency. They are no more of an expert than your next-door neighbor.

Let me repeat this -- pediatricians are NOT EXPERTS -- QUITE THE OPPOSITE. They have no business dispensing CIO advice. I guarantee you they haven't looked into/don't know anything about biological issues surrounding this stuff. My God, PLEASE don't think your pediatrician is a legitimate expert in sleep issues...that would be a huge mistake.

And I do believe you can dismiss parents' claim that CIO had many benefits (for the child). Why? Because the parents a) don't exactly have an unbiased opinion, they want to believe that what they did was the best thing, and b) parents aren't checking biological effects, they don't know whether or not their child is now a bit more predisposed to anything.

I agree with the gist of your last paragraphs -- that the studies on both sides need to be reported accurately and with full disclosure of the limitations. I suppose I resent your assuming that I, or anyone else who finds themselves believing something after assessing vast amounts of data, would try to slant their papers and leave important data out. That accusation is unwarranted -- in the many talks I've given (on other projects I have conducted) at national and international conferences, I always make a point of pointing out limitations (there are always limitations). To gloss them over is extremely common, but not something I have ever done or would take any pride in doing.

Debate is always welcome, as it can add to everyone's education and can open people's minds on both sides of the issue. But let's keep it professional -- if you don't agree with something, great! But no need to throw mud.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

PS -- to everyone else who has posted, I am just so exhausted with this pregnancy (come out already, baby!!) and have been so focused on getting a response out to Karla that I haven't made the comments I've wanted to make on everyone else's very valid opinions and comments. I've really enjoyed this entire thread, both the agreements and disagreements with my own opinion/viewpoint.


----------



## JesseMomme (Apr 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellis Herr*
PS -- to everyone else who has posted, I am just so exhausted with this pregnancy (come out already, baby!!) and have been so focused on getting a response out to Karla that I haven't made the comments I've wanted to make on everyone else's very valid opinions and comments. I've really enjoyed this entire thread, both the agreements and disagreements with my own opinion/viewpoint.

Understandable! I've had time to only







: while nak'ing, and I'm the OP.







Mothering duties call, will respond later.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifetapestry*
I know quite a few families who sleep trained their kids, and it never resulted in the kids crying for more than a few days.

I don't believe this.

Are you at their homes every night? Because I know my sister SAYS her babies sleep well and that CIO worked. But in actuality they cry their heads off for hours, literally, before finally going to sleep. And when they wake up "too early" they lay there and cry their heads off until it's time for them to get up in the morning. How can that much stress hormones and adrenaline, every night, night after night, be harmless? Honestly, those are growing babies, I know without a doubt that it is messing with their brains and psychology in serious ways. I don't need some scientific study to tell me it's harmful. I know personally how much stress affects my physical and emotional health, in big ways. And I know how it felt to cry myself to sleep every night as a child. And I mean every night. I wasn't allowed to cry loud enough to disturb my father, or I'd get a spanking, so I had to cry silently. But I still cried. I cried more nights than I didn't cry. I remember this very clearly.


----------



## Momtwice (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stafl*
I don't believe this.

I wasn't allowed to cry loud enough to disturb my father, or I'd get a spanking, so I had to cry silently. But I still cried. I cried more nights than I didn't cry. I remember this very clearly.











I severed a precious friendship with a mama-friend because she and her h spanked her child when she cried.


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *stafl*
I don't believe this.










My ex's half brother is 19 yrs younger than us. When we would stay at exMIL's, I would hear him crying in the middle of the night, sometimes 4 times in one night. Basically everytime he woke up. This continued into the toddler years, and even when he was 2.
His parents constantly said he slept so well, and tried to tell me I should just lay ds down.


----------



## lioralourie (Aug 22, 2004)

http://www.sanctuaryweb.com/Document...e%20Brains.pdf

this is related to your fight here. Pair this witht he well known research on rats which shows that just 3 weeks of stress negatively impacts the dendrite cells in the brain, and one can easily see how an infant's emotional regulation and brain structures can be affected, perhaps permanently, by CIO!

hope this is helpful


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

Karla, could you explain why you're more comfortable believing anecdotal evidence than a correlational pilot study?


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lifetapestry*
I haven't don't anything improper here, and I don't really appreciate being "scolded" as if I have. You're out of line in trying to "correct" me.

Karla

um...ok...then you're out of line trying to "correct" *me*. so there.









the tone in your posts seemed like a little more than just constructive criticism...that's what i was going on.


----------



## IncaMama (Jun 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *darwinphish*
Michele - I apologize that my last post was so scathing toward moms that CIO. I too have known many loving moms who have CIO because they think it's the right thing. If I didn't have such a gut reaction to CIO I'd have acknowledged that initially- with my point being that our larger societal values allow us to justify things that are painful for both mom and baby.

i just wanted to clarify that i wasn't responding to anybody in particular...i just sort of like to throw out that perspective in any conversation about CIO because it can quickly turn into mom-bashing...i am NOT saying that you were mom bashing at all, i was just responding generally.









and i agree that it is a societal issue - one that encourages the practice and convinces moms that it's an appropriate thing to do.


----------



## Kristine (Sep 26, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *liawbh*
Karla, could you explain why you're more comfortable believing anecdotal evidence than a correlational pilot study?

Yes, I would like to know the answer to this too. It seems that you are basing your opinions on people you know who have done this and how their children seem to you. It seems odd that you would feel more comfortable basing your opinions on a few children rather than an actual study, whether it was an advocacy one or not. Also, when you speak of the parents who use CIO on their children and who report positive benefits, I'm curious as to whose benefit you are referring to. Would these be for the parents or the baby? Studies like these are very important in my opinion because they lead the way towards larger studies and public discourse leading hopefully to the changing of opinions perhaps decades down the line as these ideas get filtered down. Remember, smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer once upon a time.

When you speak about "legitimate professionals" like pediatricians dispensing advice about CIO, could you clarify that, please? They are indeed professionals, but they go to medical school and aren't taught about the effects of CIO. They are asked for advice by lots of parents though, and so I suppose through the years they just dole out the information thinking that parents may want it without asking. But that information is just their own personal opinion, not related to their training in medical school. So unless something has changed in medical school pertaining pediatricians, they don't know about this stuff. To clarify, most of my husband's family are trained in the art of being doctors, nurses, paramedics, scientists etc. and so I've spent plenty of time discussing these issues and none of them learned about CIO or sleep patterns in medical school. But they're being honest, too. Don't know about all medical professionals out there.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, my 2 year old's asleep and I am actually NOT napping with her for a change (can I just whine one more time that I am SO EXHAUSTED with this pregnancy..







).

As a couple of pp have pointed out --

I echo the opinion that it extremely important not to actually slam the parents who use CIO vs slamming CIO itself.

Yes, there are certainly parents who are not thinking of their children and use CIO in a completely harsh, blatantly self-serving manner. However, I would guess that the vast majority are very loving parents who resort to CIO methods because they honestly believe it's the right thing to do...they are surrounded by people who are telling them to do it, and they simply don't have the support they need to make a different/better-informed decision. I especially feel for those moms whose husbands are telling them to use CIO -- they are really getting pressured from all sides, and they probably second-guess their own intuition. Add to that the utterly irresponsible pediatricians who recommend CIO based on NOTHING WHATSOEVER (







)... It's completely human of mothers who have NO anti-CIO support to deny their own intuition and cave to the pressure all around them.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

_It is not appropriate to post arguments in defense of CIO here._

Quote:

http://www.mothering.com/mdc/web_sta...ofpurpose.html
Mothering is both a fierce advocate of the needs and rights of the child and a gentle supporter of the parents

Quote:

http://www.mothering.com/mdc/mdc_useragreement.html
...we ask that you agree to respect and uphold the integrity of this community. Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members.
...
You are expected to avoid the following when you post:

Posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual...


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

Stafl, was your last post directed towards me? If so, I apologize. I am certainly NOT defending CIO methods. Not at all. I apologize if my last post came across that way. I was just trying to point out that not all parents who use CIO are monsters -- many are probably just very misguided. But I am not defending CIO itself. I was just offering a way for people to perhaps understand why on earth any parent would go through with something like that.

If I offended you (or anyone), I apologize.


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellis Herr*
Stafl, was your last post directed towards me?

no it wasn't


----------



## Quillian (Mar 1, 2003)

Just my 2 cents but how can anyone dismiss the possibility or more to the point probability of long term harm from cio when the immediate visible harm is recorded all over the interenet by parents personal accounts. Reports of the following behavior is very common:
-baby is more than agitated and anxious now when we begin the bedtime ritual.
-baby is more than clingy during the day.
-baby refuses to make eye contact.
-Crys so hard cannot breath
-Crys so hard they vomit
-Crying becomes more intense when parents do comfort checks.
-Were on week two and the crying has not subsided
-started cio on day four bay has a fever -(stands to reason they used cio while baby was becoming ill-yuck).
-Nighttime cio worked but baby still cries for naps....

Ok those are just a few questions and reports posters have had while using cio-that is a strong indication that it's harmful imo.
It typically takes a few days??? Hardly, for some maybe but typically no.

I can only state my opinion that its a cruel and inhumane way to treat a person but bravo to Ellis Herr who has put substantial effort and dedication towards this subject.


----------

