# What is "sleep training"? And what do you consider "drowsy"?



## aiea (Jan 27, 2007)

I know "sleep training" must be something non-AP when it's used in context... but I can't figure out what.

But aren't we all training our babies in some way? I'm training my babe to know that BF is available all night, that mom is nearby no matter what, etc. Also that BF is only one way to go to sleep, and that babe *can* fall asleep (the last little bit) on her own. She's 6 months.

Speaking of this, I've always wondered what the heck "drowsy" means when reading "how-to" books... Eyes open? Eyes heavy? Eyes closed?

I think the continuum ranges from -

---Just past tired & awake but no verbalization of such,
to
---Nearly 100% asleep but still nursing/being rocked/etc and would wake with any little stir

We're doing the Pantley Pull-Off (with success, yay) but I wait til babe is really very drowsy, as in 99% asleep, because that's what works for us. That's where I started wondering about the definition...

April


----------



## Finch (Mar 4, 2005)

Here's a good link:

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/7/T070700.asp

FWIW, my son still needs to be rocked to sleep (he's 3). Some kiddos are just high needs and need help getting to sleep, no matter what. I don't know the answer to the "drowsy" question.


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

What I consider to be 'sleep training' is when the best interests of the baby are not honored in order to have them adhere to a schedule that would make the parents life easier. Most often, this is CIO, there are other methods though. There are many subtle forms of CIO, not just ferberizing. One of the most severe forms of just plain old 'training' is the Ezzo material, they condone CIO, and many other imo, cruel ways to break a childs will









Gentle things like the Pantley Pull Off are fine because if the baby woke screaming once the breast was removed she suggests that perhaps baby wasn't tired enough, or that maybe it isn't the right time., she does offer support in meeting baby's needs as well as parents needs. There is a big difference and I think it all is about intention and attitude . I wanted to add that IMO, the ncss is a very mild, child friendly form af sleep training, and it helps many.HTH


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

Sleep training most commonly means teaching your child to put themselves to sleep independently, so that if they wake in the middle of the night, they can get back to sleep without freaking out, and without intervention from a parent. I disagree wholeheartedly with Dr. Sears' assessment of what sleep training means. We did sleep training with both of our children, and we NEVER let them cry it out. A gentler, more family-friendly approach to sleep training is found in the Baby Whisperer books. My daughter was sleeping 11-7 by 7 weeks, and 7-7 by 4 months. I have also had 10 foster children, all under 9 months, who we have helped to sleep independently using sleep training, and NEVER letting anyone cry it out. Getting good sleep makes for happier, more relaxed babies who feel secure in the rhythm of daily life (and nighttime life! )

The essential element of sleep training is being responsive to what your baby actually needs. Every cry doesn't mean they're hungry. Sometimes they just need a pat or a snuggle. The key is to use the least amount of intervention necessary to help them relax and get back to sleep. This applies whether they're in your room/bed or in their own (my kids sleep in cribs in separate bedrooms after 6 weeks). Another important thing is putting them down while they're still awake. Many babies wake up during the night, and if they fell asleep on the breast, and wake up someplace else, it's distressing to them (imagine if someone rolled your bed into your front yard while you were asleep!). So you put them down when they're drowsy (heavy eyelids, slow breaths, relaxed state) but not fully asleep. If they fall asleep on the breast, you gently jostle them so they open their eyes, THEN you put them in their bed. It really works great, and neither of my children have had any sleeping issues or problems going to sleep at night. Another thing -- no pacifiers after 8 weeks. Babies do not need pacifiers beyond the newborn stage, and you can get rid of them easily if you do it early. Then you avoid the whole pacifier-fell-out-so-the-baby-wakes-up issue.


----------



## swampangel (Feb 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
So you put them down when they're drowsy (heavy eyelids, slow breaths, relaxed state) but not fully asleep. If they fall asleep on the breast, you gently jostle them so they open their eyes, THEN you put them in their bed. It really works great, and neither of my children have had any sleeping issues or problems going to sleep at night.

They didn't cry at all?? Wow!! Or did they cry and you were there to soothe them? I only ask because we have NEVER been successful in putting either of our boys down awake without crying. Therefore we always put them down asleep which means night waking, but we just have never figured out a way around that.

Did none of these kids cry when you put them down awake? I'm in awe...


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *swampangel* 
Did none of these kids cry when you put them down awake? I'm in awe...

Some of them cried, and some of them didn't. If they cry, you first try to console them without touching them, by just talking to them and making rhythmic shushing sounds (sh sh shhhhh sh sh shhh is how I do it...it's supposed to mimic the watery sound they're used to when they're on the inside). If that doesn't work, you pat, rub their hair, etc., without picking them up. If they keep escalating, you pick them up just long enough to settle them, and then put them back down when they stop crying, but before they've fallen asleep. You stay low-stress, quiet voice the entire time, and you focus on conveying a peaceful, happy, relaxed attitude -- "It's ok, you're in your bed, it's time to sleep." You may have to repeat several times in the early phases of sleep training, because you need to respond to every cry, and keep putting them back in their bed awake. Once they get comfortable with the idea that they're safe and ok in their bed, and that they can get you when they need you, their sleepiness takes over, and they get into this dreamy drowsy state where they don't care that you've walked away because they're confident that you'll be around if they need you. I can usually get a new baby sleep trained in about 3 nights, so that they're sleeping at least 8 hours if they're 3 months old. My one caveat is that they need to weigh at least 12 pounds in order to sleep 12 hours with no feeds.

The trouble new AP parents can have, IMO, is that they don't see the line between AP and encouraging their children to be dependent on them in order to get to sleep. I consider myself AP, and I have also seen first-hand (through foster parenting) the problems that result when children have no secure attachment with a primary caregiver, so I wouldn't consider letting an infant cry it out. The whole point of attachment parenting is that you want to give your children the confidence that their needs will be met, and you can definitely achieve this simultaneously with helping them achieve healthy and independent sleep habits. Being able to feel relaxed enough to get a good, continuous night's sleep is a wonderful gift to give your baby, and let's face it -- it's much easier being a warm, supportive, loving, involved parent if you're not half-dead from sleep deprivation.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

There is nothing wrong with a BF baby who wakes in the night, in fact it is perfectly normal. BM digests quicker than formula so the baby gets hungry quicker.

Avoiding night feeding at too young of an age, can lead to a drop in supply. Some BF babies might sleep through the night, but they are the *exception* not the rule.

Also, there are many factors in which the BF baby might wake more often including teething and growth spurts. Many BF babies will do more night nursing to increase your supply as they are preparing for a growth spurt.

Dr Sears is a Pediatrician and his wife is a Board Certified Lactation consultant.

Tracy Hogg has referred to Mothering Magazine (which owns this site) Dr Sears AND Le Leche League as "extreme."

I wouldn't recommend the Baby Whisperer for a BF baby. She was not a BF expert and much of her advice and commentary regarding BF is *contrary* to the experts.

The No Cry Sleep Solution is recommended by LLL.


----------



## SandraS (Jan 18, 2007)

I never put any of my three down "awake or drowsy", FWIW. All three were rocked/nursed/cuddled for each and every bedtime and naptime. They all self-weaned around 2 years old. I felt that was one of the most loving gifts I could give them - to be loved to sleep. And none of them had troubles in the middle of the night falling back to sleep if something woke them.

Just another opinion.

Oh, and the need-to-suck instinct can last WAY longer than 8 weeks. It is not a cut-and-dried "they don't need it past that" rule.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

While I completely understand that cosleeping doesn't work for every family (some babies and adults sleep better separately! Nothing wrong with that)... I do feel that 'training' a baby to sleep without touch is counter-intuitive.


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

I think it's extremely important that families do what works best for them. If co-sleeping, round-the-clock feeding, and pacifiers work for your family, that's great. What makes me sad is seeing AP parents who are miserable with their children's sleep habits and can't see any solution other than what they're already doing.


----------



## rzberrymom (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
Some of them cried, and some of them didn't. If they cry, you first try to console them without touching them, by just talking to them and making rhythmic shushing sounds (sh sh shhhhh sh sh shhh is how I do it...it's supposed to mimic the watery sound they're used to when they're on the inside). If that doesn't work, you pat, rub their hair, etc., without picking them up. If they keep escalating, you pick them up just long enough to settle them, and then put them back down when they stop crying, but before they've fallen asleep. You stay low-stress, quiet voice the entire time, and you focus on conveying a peaceful, happy, relaxed attitude -- "It's ok, you're in your bed, it's time to sleep." You may have to repeat several times in the early phases of sleep training, because you need to respond to every cry, and keep putting them back in their bed awake. Once they get comfortable with the idea that they're safe and ok in their bed, and that they can get you when they need you, their sleepiness takes over, and they get into this dreamy drowsy state where they don't care that you've walked away because they're confident that you'll be around if they need you. I can usually get a new baby sleep trained in about 3 nights, so that they're sleeping at least 8 hours if they're 3 months old. My one caveat is that they need to weigh at least 12 pounds in order to sleep 12 hours with no feeds.

I don't think these suggestions are appropriate for a website devoted to working to meet a baby's needs. What I think the problem is that a baby's needs go beyond what you're willing to see. For example, a 3 month old who is only eating every 8 hours is not having his/her nutritional needs met. Or a nine month old who hits the separation anxiety stage and learns that mama will not respond is not having his psychological needs met. These approaches are dangerous to a baby's physical and psychological health, as well as to a mama's milk supply.

I suggest that you educate yourself--kellymom.com is a great place to start.


----------



## SandraS (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rzberrymom* 
I don't think these suggestions are appropriate for a website devoted to working to meet a baby's needs. What I think the problem is that a baby's needs go beyond what you're willing to see. For example, a 3 month old who is only eating every 8 hours is not having his/her nutritional needs met. Or a nine month old who hits the separation anxiety stage and learns that mama will not respond is not having his psychological needs met. These approaches are dangerous to a baby's physical and psychological health, as well as to a mama's milk supply.

I suggest that you educate yourself--kellymom.com is a great place to start.

ITA. 150%.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
I think it's extremely important that families do what works best for them. If co-sleeping, round-the-clock feeding, and pacifiers work for your family, that's great. What makes me sad is seeing AP parents who are miserable with their children's sleep habits and can't see any solution other than what they're already doing.

If a baby was doing round the clock feeding I would expect there was a reason for it.

BF babies do not overeat. My dd did marathon feedings when she was having a growth spurt and NEEDED the extra nutrition that additional nursing provided.

I was about to lose my mind right around 7 months...she was nursing NON-stop practically, within weeks she was not only walking but running.

If a baby is nursing around the clock there is a reason.

This forum is the co-sleeping forum.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Can I just add that even Weissbluth (of extinction CIO fame) says that some babies need to be fed at night up until 9 months. (my 9 month old nurses 3x/night). To say that a 12lb baby can go 12 hours without food or liquids seems nonsensical to me. I am over 150lbs and I can't do that.

(Of course some do, naturally. I'm just uncomfortable with the thought of training the baby to be that way).


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Quote:

I'm training my babe to know that BF is available all night, that mom is nearby no matter what, etc.
Hmm, I've never thought of mothering a baby to be training like that. It's been interesting to ponder







I'm more of the mind that human babies are born instinctively needing human contact and mother's milk. IMO, instead of framing meeting your dd's needs as training, I would consider doing what you're doing as normal human behavior. When one starts doing anything _other_ than what's biologically normal to address/stave off innate physical/emotional needs, this, to me at least, would perhaps involve "training." At least in a cultural context.

As I think about it, I probably "trained" all of my babies to associate my grabbing the sling to meaning time to be picked up and get in it









After mothering only three very different babies, I can say from my personal experience that some babies *can* fall asleep easily on their own and do. Often, it's just a temperament thing. Other babies actually *need* to nurse to sleep and need to be attached all throughout the day, and it's not a dirty word! It's normal for them. Maybe not culturally typical, but biologically very normal









I've seen lots of sleep stuff like tapping softly on baby's head and making other sleep associations, like noises, that might also be considered conditioning. But, I'm not sure about training. Perhaps. Interesting to think about!

I'm not a big fan of *any* baby experts who are selling a method other than look to the baby and go with your heart







One of my favorite sayings is "Put down the book and pick up the baby." A mother is her own baby's expert...I think all too often in our culture, we are seduced by the 'quick fix.' Meeting a baby's intense needs is _not_ easy....but the effort involved is so worth it









This passage is from the Family Bed/Nighttime Parenting Forum Guidelines. I think every new parent can benefit from reading it and taking it to heart. I can't tell you how many times I've read this passage to renew my spirit and conviction.

Quote:

*Once we become parents it is easy to blame ourselves when our children's behavior seems out of control. The pervasive idea that we should be able to control sleep habits leads us too quickly to call night waking a "sleep disorder" and to wonder what we are doing wrong to cause it. Research gives no indication that anything parents do causes night waking. Babies whose cries are responded to rapidly are not more prone to it. Assuming that there is some method out there to treat sleep "disorders" undermines a parent's confidence. Despite the notion that "healthy, normal" babies sleep through the night, surveys of parents show that most babies do not sleep through the night, at least until all their teeth are in.

While waiting for our children to develop physically and emotionally to the point where they can realistically soothe themsleves to sleep, we need to work on our own development toward tolerance, patience, and acceptance of those aspects of parenting that are beyond our control. What remains in our control is the ability to continue to care for our children even though they are keeping us awake at night; to continue to hold to our own integrity as feeling people.

To embrace a philosophy that takes into account the individual needs of each child is not to ignore the unfortunate reality that we need sleep. We need to nurture ourselves in this process of raising children. The key to tolerance, and the natural passge through the nightwaking years, is to observe, accept, and work with your child's own inner rhythms and timetables, which can lead to the understanding that nurturing your child and nurturing yourself are not mutually exclusive enterprises.

'Natural Family Living' by Peggy O'Mara*


----------



## Scout (Jan 23, 2002)

Have only a second but I wanted to say quickly that, Kate Carmichael, I agree with what YOU said 150%.


----------



## rzberrymom (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Scout* 
Have only a second but I wanted to say quickly that, Kate Carmichael, I agree with what YOU said 150%.

You agree that a 3 month old should sleep at least 8 hours without nursing? And that a baby who is at least 12 pounds can go 12 hours with no feeds? I'd love to see the science behind this.


----------



## Herausgeber (Apr 29, 2006)

Do people really put their babies to bed at 7 pm? Mine doesn't go down for good until midnight, when we do. If mom and/or dad work 9-5, they wouldn't get any time with their child on that schedule. How depressing.


----------



## SandraS (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Herausgeber* 
Do people really put their babies to bed at 7 pm? Mine doesn't go down for good until midnight, when we do. If mom and/or dad work 9-5, they wouldn't get any time with their child on that schedule. How depressing.

Oh heck no.... all three of mine never went to sleep until between 10 and midnight. I couldn't stand only seeing them an hour or less a day!!


----------



## SandraS (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rzberrymom* 
You agree that a 3 month old should sleep at least 8 hours without nursing? And that a baby who is at least 12 pounds can go 12 hours with no feeds? I'd love to see the science behind this.









:


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

Thanks Scout!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rzberrymom* 
I don't think these suggestions are appropriate for a website devoted to working to meet a baby's needs. What I think the problem is that a baby's needs go beyond what you're willing to see. For example, a 3 month old who is only eating every 8 hours is not having his/her nutritional needs met. Or a nine month old who hits the separation anxiety stage and learns that mama will not respond is not having his psychological needs met. These approaches are dangerous to a baby's physical and psychological health, as well as to a mama's milk supply.

I suggest that you educate yourself--kellymom.com is a great place to start.

Thanks for the recommendation; I perused that site a while back. If anything, I'm over-educated on meeting the needs of infants, given that I've had 40 hours of core training in parenting therapeutic-level foster children, and 15-20 hours annually of renewal training, plus all of the conferences I've attended and independent reading I've done on the subject.

I'm confused -- are you suggesting that I did not meet my children's nutritional and psychologal needs? If so, I'm not sure why you would say that, knowing none of the relevant facts about my children. None of my babies, even the foster babies who were born drug-addicted and premature, were failure to thrive once I had them for a month or so, nor were any of them even underweight for their size. In fact, one of our foster children arrived in our home weighing 7lb 12oz at 4 months old (he was born weighing 7lb 6oz), and in less than a month, I had him up to 12 pounds. My daughter weighed 20 pounds at 6 months, and 29 pounds at a year; perfect for her height. Foster children, in particular, spend a lot of time being closely monitored by the pediatrician, various specialists, and case managers, all of whom document their development and progress, and all of my babies stayed on their growth curve, were happy, and thrived in my care.

I think you may have gotten confused about my pp -- I was not saying that a 3-month old only needed to eat every 8 hours; I was saying that a 3-month old can get his or her nutritional needs met during the day and sleep a solid 8 hours at night (for formula, that means 25-30 oz per day; for bm, your supply will adjust naturally as the baby stops requiring it at night, though you may have to pump at first).

To clarify further, I never once suggested not meeting a child's psychological needs; on the contrary, I respond to every single cry, every single time. If a child can be consoled and put back to sleep with a quick snuggle and soft words, he is not hungry and does not need to eat. I'll take it one step further and suggest that trying to nurse every time a child cries is LESS responsive to a child's needs. I'd feel pretty misunderstood if every time I just needed a hug, my husband handed me a bowl of ice cream instead.

Bottom line is that each family should do what works for them and their child. If your family is happy with your system, then you should look no further for solutions or advice. But if you are miserable with your child's sleep habits, there are other ways to be an attachment parent AND get more sleep for everyone in the household. My point is not to convince anyone to do things the way we do them in our family. The OP was inquiring about what it means to sleep train, and I have provided my answer to that question.


----------



## cmp03 (Sep 22, 2006)

Herausgeber -

I do not put my daughter to sleep at 7:00pm, she puts herself to sleep then. I have tired to keep her up later so that I can spend more time with her but it doesn't work. She goes to sleep by 7pm and is up at 5:30 am, pretty mich everyday. Most of the time I am in bed by 8 or 8:30 anyways.

Even though I work 4-5 days a week I am still lucky to be able to spend at least 4-5 hours a day with her (between the morning and afternoons). Her dad is home with her the rest of the time so at least I am sure she is always getting her needs me by one of her parents.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
Thanks Scout!

Thanks for the recommendation; I perused that site a while back. If anything, I'm over-educated on meeting the needs of infants, given that I've had 40 hours of core training in parenting therapeutic-level foster children, and 15-20 hours annually of renewal training, plus all of the conferences I've attended and independent reading I've done on the subject.

I'm confused -- are you suggesting that I did not meet my children's nutritional and psychologal needs? If so, I'm not sure why you would say that, knowing none of the relevant facts about my children. None of my babies, even the foster babies who were born drug-addicted and premature, were failure to thrive once I had them for a month or so, nor were any of them even underweight for their size. In fact, one of our foster children arrived in our home weighing 7lb 12oz at 4 months old (he was born weighing 7lb 6oz), and in less than a month, I had him up to 12 pounds. My daughter weighed 20 pounds at 6 months, and 29 pounds at a year; perfect for her height. Foster children, in particular, spend a lot of time being closely monitored by the pediatrician, various specialists, and case managers, all of whom document their development and progress, and all of my babies stayed on their growth curve, were happy, and thrived in my care.

I think you may have gotten confused about my pp -- I was not saying that a 3-month old only needed to eat every 8 hours; I was saying that a 3-month old can get his or her nutritional needs met during the day and sleep a solid 8 hours at night (for formula, that means 25-30 oz per day; for bm, your supply will adjust naturally as the baby stops requiring it at night, though you may have to pump at first).

To clarify further, I never once suggested not meeting a child's psychological needs; on the contrary, I respond to every single cry, every single time. If a child can be consoled and put back to sleep with a quick snuggle and soft words, he is not hungry and does not need to eat. I'll take it one step further and suggest that trying to nurse every time a child cries is LESS responsive to a child's needs. I'd feel pretty misunderstood if every time I just needed a hug, my husband handed me a bowl of ice cream instead.

Bottom line is that each family should do what works for them and their child. If your family is happy with your system, then you should look no further for solutions or advice. But if you are miserable with your child's sleep habits, there are other ways to be an attachment parent AND get more sleep for everyone in the household. My point is not to convince anyone to do things the way we do them in our family. The OP was inquiring about what it means to sleep train, and I have provided my answer to that question.

Why would I pump for my baby when I could feed her? I'm so confused. My children were very well rested, even though dd1 reverse cycled when I when back to work. From 4 months to 9 months she nursed almost all night. She napped more during the day and nursed more at night.

She certainly couldn't have gone 12 hours at 3 months.

I personally saw the effects of sleep training on my nephews. They "weaned" themselves at 9 months because of the long nights with no feeds.

I'm guessing that Kate Carmichael's approach might not damage all babies, but I honestly wouldn't want to take the chance.


----------



## Herausgeber (Apr 29, 2006)

That wasn't a judgement. I was just curious since it's so different from my experience. It probably depends on the schedule the whole family is on.


----------



## rzberrymom (Feb 10, 2005)

Kate, I'll give you an example of the type of info you'll be directed to if you spend some time on the Kellymom site:

*1) Health issues*--pushing infants to nurse on the schedule you're promoting (i.e. training an infant to go 8 hours) leads to a risk of blood sugar issues:

Quote:

Most young babies need to nurse at least 8-12 times or every 2-3 hours during a 24 hour period. Studies show that newborns who are allowed to nurse frequently and on demand regain their birthweight more quickly and are at less risk for developing low blood sugar and jaundice. Conversely, babies who are fed strictly by the clock regain birthweight more slowly and need medical intervention for treatment of low blood sugar and jaundice largely due to the fact that their mothers' milk is slow to become more plentiful due to less frequent feedings.
*2.) Risk to milk supply*- a baby placed on the schedule you're promoting is not able to stimulate the mother's body to produce the necessary milk.

Quote:

Breastmilk is produced on a supply and demand basis. The more your baby nurses the more milk your body will make. The less your baby nurses the less milk your body will make. Insisting on an artificial schedule may result in not enough stimulation to your breasts and therefore a scanty milk supply. As a result you may not be able to fully meet your baby's nutritional requirements thus resulting in the need to supplement with artificial milk.
*3) Growth*--your schedule would not allow the baby to stimulate mama's body to produce the increased milk necessary during growth spurts:

Quote:

As baby grows he will experience periods of heightened growth that generally last for several days. Commonly referred to as growth spurts, these periods require more feeding flexibility. Baby demands to feed more often and your body responds to this increased demand by increasing your milk supply. Adhering to a set schedule during these times may result in a baby who's increased caloric needs are not met. Furthermore, your breasts will not receive the added stimulation they require to boost up your supply to meet your baby's growing needs.
*4.) Psychological benefits of nursing*--nursing is about so much more than food. Yes, a baby that is not allowed to nurse during the night is not having his/her psychological needs filled.

Quote:

babies need to suck and find great consolation at the breast when they feel lonely, insecure, tired, overstimulated, and overwhelmed with the changing world. It is this non-nutritive need for mother's breast that ensures that this emotional as well as physical need is met. Thus, breastfeeding - unlike bottlefeeding - is more than feeding. It is communication between mother and baby. It is a form of nurturing; it is an act of love.
http://www.breastfeed-essentials.com/schedules.html

These are examples. You will find a tremendous amount of information if you spend more time on that site.


----------



## SandraS (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
If anything, I'm over-educated on meeting the needs of infants, given that I've had 40 hours of core training in parenting therapeutic-level foster children, and 15-20 hours annually of renewal training, plus all of the conferences I've attended and independent reading I've done on the subject.

I've said it before - parenting without instinct and only with books is a mistake.

*The biggest myth in parenting, perpetuated by the reality of this ready-made advice, is that if you consume enough information on the subject, you'll find all the answers. - Paula Spencer*


----------



## cmp03 (Sep 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Herausgeber* 
That wasn't a judgement. I was just curious since it's so different from my experience. It probably depends on the schedule the whole family is on.

I didn't think you were judgemental at all. I do think that her schedule has mostly adapted to mine. Since I get up that early to go to work anyways, she proceded to do the same.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
I'd feel pretty misunderstood if every time I just needed a hug, my husband handed me a bowl of ice cream instead.

While I think this is an interesting point, I think you are ignoring the fact that babies nurse for comfort.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

The very fact that Kate Carmichael's examples relate to foster children who are, by necessity, bottlefed, makes them inapplicable to breastfed children. The whole suggestion that BF mothers pump in order to emulate bottlefeeding practices is just







:

ETA on the bowl of ice cream, comparing nature's perfect food dispensed in the biologically appropriate manner to emotionally inappropriate indulgence in unhealthy desserts is totally unacceptable.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
The very fact that Kate Carmichael's examples relate to foster children who are, by necessity, bottlefed, makes them inapplicable to breastfed children. The whole suggestion that BF mothers pump in order to emulate bottlefeeding practices is just







:

ETA on the bowl of ice cream, comparing nature's perfect food dispensed in the biologically appropriate manner to emotionally inappropriate indulgence in unhealthy desserts is totally unacceptable.









:

The Baby Whisperer books are well known for their damaging information regarding breastfeeding.

-Angela


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

Once again, I'm not recommending that anyone who is happy with their system follow mine. If you want to feed your baby in the middle of the night, please do. All I'm saying is that attachment parenting and sleep training are not mutually exclusive, and that there are many AP families who successfully meet their child's needs in different ways than are typically recommended on this forum.

I don't push any particular schedule on anyone; I help my child get the sleep they want and need. If their needs can be met with a snuggle, why feed them?

I think it's extremely important that mamas know all of the options so they don't feel bound to one particular method of doing things, nor like they will be judged or their child will be harmed if they don't co-sleep, feed round-the-clock, etc. The fact is that my children and my foster children have thrived with more continuous sleep, while still getting their nutritional and psychological needs met: it IS possible. If it's not something you want to try yourself, that's fine, but I'm reading a lot of judgment about the way my family approaches our life in a forum that consistently complains about being judged by others for their family choices. Makes you think, huh?

_I've said it before - parenting without instinct and only with books is a mistake._

I pointed out my extensive training only because it was suggested by the PP that my parenting was somehow deficient and that I am uneducated. I do parent by instinct; my instincts are different from the majority of posters involved in this discussion. Sleep is important for brain development, and better sleep leads to happier children. If my children need comfort, I give them comfort. If they need to eat, I feed them.

Again, I point to the OP: "What is sleep training?" The subsequent posts asserted that sleep training and attachment parenting were mutually exclusive, and I believe it's important to point out that you can sleep train in a way that is responsive to your child's needs, without CIO.


----------



## SandraS (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
I help my child get the sleep they want and need. If their needs can be met with a snuggle, why feed them?


You said earlier:

_The key is to use the least amount of intervention necessary to help them relax and get back to sleep._

That's a contradiction, isn't it? You say DON'T intervene, but then say go ahead and snuggle... or am I just needing a cup of coffee here?


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jun 22, 2006)

She didn't say "don't intervene" as I read it -- just "only intervene the amount necessary to make the baby comforted and happy and able to go back to sleep." If it takes shushing, then shush. If that doesn't work, then back-pat, sing, snuggle, change diaper, or, finally, feed, as necessary to comfort the baby.

My own kid never woke at night as an infant wanting anything BUT food, but she was breastfed and a big eater, day and night both.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
If their needs can be met with a snuggle, why feed them?

To keep your supply up, to avoid or relieve engorgement, to maintain lactational amenorrhea, to make sure you aren't setting yourself up for an uncomfortably long feeding session later on if you a painful condition like thrush...all sorts of reasons, most of which have already been pointed out. By suggesting that mothers pump in order to put your system into practice, you implicitly admit that it's not actually conducive to the essential physiological processes of the ongoing breastfeeding relationship. And how is pumping supposed to help you get more sleep, anyway????????

Why _not_ feed them? Other than because one is in thrall to the cultural taboo on putting babies to the breast? Once you get over the idea that breastfeeding should be minimized, there's no going back. It's a total paradigm shift. It only makes sense for a mother who wishes to exclusively breastfeed for a culturally atypical period of time to give the act of feeding top priority. It's so transparent that this method says the goal is more sleep (by getting up and shushing and talking and walking and rocking? by _pumping_?







: but it's clearly designed to minimize breastfeeding. We're just not interested.

ETA but we ARE concerned about less-experienced mothers whose breastfeeding could be sabotaged by this unnatural advice.

As for judgment, you may not be aware that you come off as pretty condescending with repeated statements of the form "If you're truly content to do such-and-such, but......" etc., sweeping statements about what babies of certain ages and sizes do and don't need, and use of bottlefeeding as a paradigmatic example. There's a lot more to attachment parenting than not crying it out. Training children to make do with unnecessarily minimized levels of contact is not AP, no matter if you manage to do it without them crying.

And BTW your foster children were probably already CIO before they came to you. They probably responded so well to your minimalistic method of nighttime response because it was so much more than they were getting before, and the Universe will thank you for it. Not to mention you are not even allowed to BF or cosleep with foster kids. That definitely does not translate into a reason for biomamas to minimize nighttime parenting to that level.


----------



## rzberrymom (Feb 10, 2005)

Kate, I think where we're going in opposite directions is that you're talking about formula fed babies--the physiology involved in breastfeeding is VERY different. There are tremendous risk from the kinds of methods you're promoting for young babies, and it's important for that information to be out here on the table.


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

I am promoting nothing; recommending nothing. There's nothing condescending about telling mamas to do what feels right to them, and that if their methods are working for their family, there's no need to change. That's sincere on my part. I don't judge how anyone goes about their business, whether they're bfing, bottle feeding, whatever. If the child is happy and loved, you are a successful parent.

That said:
(1) I am well aware that there's more to AP than not CIO. We co-slept early on, fed round-the-clock with all our children until they're ready to stretch it out at night (and what can I say, except that all 12 kids I've parented have been ready by 3 months?), responded immediately to every need, and still to this day carry my 2.5YO daughter in an Ergo carrier.

I am also aware that there are more options for family life, nutritional success, and healthy sleep habits than the two poles commonly mentioned here: CIO v. family bed/24-hr feeding. I believe those other options should be mentioned, so that mamas who are miserable and feeling hopeless (if you're not, this doesn't apply to you) don't mistakenly believe that their only choices are miserable ones for their family (CIO or family bed/24-hr feeding). For some families, an intermediate approach works best.

(2) Re: pumping, surely you're not saying that anytime a woman pumps, she is somehow doing something wrong? There are an awful lot of breast pumps sold in this country, and not just because evil people are trying to diminish nursing. Women who work have to pump. Women who are sick have to pump. Women who have excessively high milk production have to pump. And women whose babies are transitioning to needing less bm may have to pump for a while, until their supply evens out.

(3) Re: foster children, we can co-sleep with foster children until they're 2. There are no rules in my state about nursing foster children, so it is not prohibited. As for whether bmoms let them CIO before they came to me, some probably did, and some didn't. It depends on why they were removed. We've had newborns, and we've had older babies who were removed not for neglect, but because their mom was on drugs. Many of our babies never left their mother's arms, until they came into foster care. It's dangerous to make assumptions about a child's bparents, life before they came into care, and foster children in general, because these kids have enough stigmas attached to them without the harsh judgments of others. Some bmoms love their babies v. much, but are SMI, mentally retarded, or addicts. That may mean they don't feed them well, but it doesn't always mean they're left to cry all day.

(4) I don't understand how it's minimalistic to meet a child's every need, and respond to every cry with what they're asking for. If they're asking for food, fine. No child of mine has ever gone hungry. But the fact is that IME, after a certain age, nighttime distress isn't about hunger. It's my goal to respond to my children with what they actually want.


----------



## rzberrymom (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
If they're asking for food, fine. No child of mine has ever gone hungry. But the fact is that IME, after a certain age, nighttime distress isn't about hunger.

But, your example was to train a 3 month old to go 8 hours at night without nursing. Is that what you mean by after a certain age?


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
(2) Re: pumping, surely you're not saying that anytime a woman pumps, she is somehow doing something wrong? There are an awful lot of breast pumps sold in this country, and not just because evil people are trying to diminish nursing. Women who work have to pump. Women who are sick have to pump. Women who have excessively high milk production have to pump. And women whose babies are transitioning to needing less bm may have to pump for a while, until their supply evens out.

No, pumping is not always bad. But it's not always needed either, and it CAN be bad.
Why would sick women need to pump? (unless they have to be away from baby)
Women with excessively high milk production should NOT pump as pumping will increase it.
Why would women need to pump when their child needs less milk?

I get the feeling that you have some misunderstandings about nursing and nursing relationships, because many things you are putting out here are just plain wrong.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kate Carmichael* 
But the fact is that IME, after a certain age, nighttime distress isn't about hunger. It's my goal to respond to my children with what they actually want.

Well, you are entitled to any opinion and experience that you have, however, research disagrees strongly with the ages you have put forth. Sure. Some babies are ready to "sleep through the night" at 3 months. And some are not ready until a year and a half. It is dangerous to children and nursing relationships to assume that it is safe to nightwean at 3 months.

-Angela


----------



## Kate Carmichael (Mar 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rzberrymom* 
But, your example was to train a 3 month old to go 8 hours at night without nursing. Is that what you mean by after a certain age?

That's how it's worked in our family, yes.


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

Hi all









This thread has adequately addressed the OP's questions and has begun to go off topic.

This discussion, as it is now, doesn't reflect the views and purpose of MDC. I'm not going to remove the thread so it can still be accessed, but it will be locked so there will be no new posts.

Thanks for understanding.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

I think this Mothering Magazine article written by Paul Fleiss will be of great interest to the OP and anyone interested in learning more about sleep training:

Pillow Talk: Helping Your Child Get a Good's Night Sleep

Excerpt from MM:

Quote:

*
...Medical journals regularly publish the latest scientific data on child sleep. Unfortunately, not all "scientific" studies on sleep are correct, and not all self-appointed sleep experts give accurate, child-nurturing information. Too often, cultural biases regarding sleep predominate over genuine biological facts...

...Many of the so-called "sleep problems" that parents report in their children are actually the result of rigid and unreasonable expectations that are based on unnatural and unrealistic myths about how children are supposed to be. The incorrect advice on sleep that is found in so many childcare books is based on such expectations...

Babies, however, cannot be tricked into yielding to unreasonable expectations. The baby's refusal to cooperate with feeding schedules and rigid "training" indicates that these expectations are unnatural and don't meet the baby's biological needs. There are several mistakes that parents commonly make in the attempt to help their child sleep...

...We should not, however, confuse eating with breastfeeding. Breastfeeding promotes sleep. Infants and young children who are still nursing should be allowed to nurse as often as they want.

10. Don't "train" your child to sleep by regulating feeding times. When in good health, a baby will signal when he or she needs to feed. Feeding should never be governed by a time schedule. The idea, currently promoted by some childcare book authors, that babies can be "trained" to "sleep through the night" by restricting, regulating, and managing feeding is unrealistic and cruel. When an infant wants to feed, it is because his or her body requires nourishment. Depriving an infant of nourishment when he or she needs it is, frankly speaking, abusive. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics is very worried by the rise of so-called "parent-directed" feeding schemes as alleged methods of "training" infants and children to sleep through the night.

A newborn breastfed infant will usually want to nurse every one to three hours. There may sometimes be one stretch in 24 hours where he or she might go five to six hours before wanting to feed. Remember that breastfeeding is much more than feeding: Infants may be hungry, thirsty, frightened, loving, dreaming, or sick when they want to be placed at their mother's breast. They may be there a long time or sometimes for just a quick little kiss on the nipple. Whatever the reason, they should never be denied access to it.

Infants and children cannot be "trained" to sleep. They should not be treated as if they were circus animals. Infants and children have differing sleep needs and sleep patterns. They both require the safety, security, and emotional sanctuary of responsible parents, and also frequent nursing. Not all infants are alike, however, and the amount of nursing that your infant needs cannot, therefore, be precisely predicted or regulated. There is an association between nursing and sleeping, but only insofar as an infant will sleep best if he or she is assured of a constant supply of mother's milk. Sleeping with your infant so that he or she is close to the mother's breast is the ideal way of ensuring that the baby gets the optimal amount of sleep.*
*
*
*
and this one, "Doesn't the Breast Work Anymore?" by Kitty Franz, is also very insightful









Quote:

Often, the best thing about babies is how they teach us things such as patience, flexibility, and unconditional love. When you're a tired new parent, it is very seductive to think that you can "manage" your erratically and often frequently feeding infant by putting her on a schedule, especially if you're a first-time parent and had time before the birth to read, imagine, and, unfortunately, plan how things would be once the baby was born. It's not surprising that books on infant sleep are top moneymakers for publishersâ€"in early infancy, every baby wakes in the night, so every parent will want such books. But the one thing such books and the erroneous advice they give do not seem to take into account is the baby. What works for one baby may not work for another. What works for a toddler won't work for an infant. Here are the facts. Because babies grow in spurts, their needs will change throughout the day, the week, and the months to come. And because of this, their schedules change. A lot. The composition of breastmilk also changes throughout the day, week by week and month by month, to match the baby's needs. This process of making different kinds of milk at different times may be initiated by changes in the way the infant suckles. Why mess up this symbiotic process by putting the baby on a schedule? Can you imagine being hungry because your body is signaling a change, and someone says you can't eat now because she, not you, has decided it isn't the "right time" to eat? The baby's job is to double her birth weight in the first four to six months after birth. Restricting breastfeedings may make this task seriously difficult.

It is interesting that research by Arthur Parmalee, of UCLA, revealed that babies need to feed around the clock, and do not sleep for a consecutive six hours until they are 8 to 12 weeks old (just before they have almost finished the task of doubling their weight). He calls a six-hour sleep "sleeping through the night," though this label should not be confused with some parents' definition of the phrase as meaning 8 to 10 hours (which doesn't come till much later in the first year). Research with similar findings was published by M. Shimada in the October 1999 issue of Brain Development. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that newborns should feed 8 to 12 times within each 24-hour period. Note that it did not say "every two to three hours," which is how some interpret this recommendation. The AAP phrases it this way because research has shown that babies vary their schedules to accommodate their needs.

Marshall Klaus found that during each 24-hour period, newborns have at least one "cluster feed" several breastfeedings close together. Most experienced breastfeeding women know this and roll with it. How long a baby stays at the breast is related to how well she suckles. Slow sucklers need longer feeds; when schedulers restrict this time, the slower-feeding baby is out of luck. Renowned breastfeeding expert Chloe Fisher of Oxford, England, says to "finish the first breast first" that is, let the baby feed until she lets go, signaling that she is finished.

I tell parents that a simple way to sort out conflicting advice is to see which basket it fits into: the good-for-the-parent basket or the good-for-the-baby basket. For example, into which basket would you put "You should put that baby on a feeding schedule"? This process will help you decide which advice feels best for you. Trust your gut-your first instinct. Don't talk yourself out of it by believing that some advice you read must be good because it was in a book, or the person giving the advice has five kids, or was a nurse.
Copyright Mothering Magazine







*


----------

