# CIO/CC make me so sad



## mamawannabee

I know parents do this out of desperation, whether it has been weeks or months with no sleep, but it just makes me so sad to hear people talk about. Babies don't wake up and cry for no reason, if they are waking, they are just as mad about being up as the parent is, and they need something! I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I knew this was the only place I could vent where people wouldn't attack me saying parents need sleep too, it's okay after 6 months, it's a personal decision, blah blah blah...


----------



## PrayinForBaby

Hear Hear!! I fully agree!!!


----------



## mrs_park

I agree! Sleep deprivation had me questioning my choices for a while there but I am SO GLAD that I didn't do it!


----------



## Kess

It makes me sad too. Ro only very recently started sleeping properly; for around 7 months I was awake three hours after he went to bed then every hour and a half for the rest of the night. I also have a disability that means I need more sleep than average. We still never resorted to CIO. Once or twice a week my hubby took him from 7pm when I went to bed (!) till midnight or 1am so I got a decent sleep then he went to bed and I did the rest of the night shift until 4 or 5am when Ro would want to get up for the day. My MIL and parents took him for a few hours every few weeks for me to nap. It was what I signed up for, when I decided to have a baby, your parenting duties do not stop at night. We have tried various ways to encourage him to sleep and they seem to be working, but we'd never try anything that would leave him to cry himself to sleep.

Other than last night (urgh, knackered again! up half a dozen times and I'm not even sure why), the 3 or 4 nights before that were bliss - Ro to bed at 7, a dream feed at 9pm, and he slept till 3 or 4am, had another feed and then went back to sleep till 6.30am!

I don't completely blame individual parents for resorting to it, I mean when you're sleep deprived you aren't thinking straight, I can attest to that. But it's everyone who tells you to do it, ILs, HVs, etc. And then people act like you're making a rod for your own back when you won't CIO and so refuse to help or sympathise. Grrrr.


----------



## Rachel_C

Yes it is very sad. It hurts me to hear my LO, or any LO, cry like that. What I think is more sad is that society accepts and even encourages it. It's a very sad way for the world to be - I hope my kids grow up not realising it can be like that often.


----------



## OmiOmen

I think it is sad to hear too. I was sleep very deprived for the first year so know how hard it can be but at the same time I knew kids were tough before I had one. 

I particularly dislike that some Health Visitors suggest it considering research has shown that the brain releases a stress hormone which is believed may contribute to cot death. You would think that HV's would have to be up to date with such research. It seems like a lot of HV's give dreadful advice, not just on this issue either.


----------



## Dragonfly

It is sad to hear. I hope this dosnt go in to an explosion of parents who use cc and cio. I seen a lot of parents coming on my facebook page saying that they had done cc and cio knowing no better and effected their bond looking to fix it, some see the signs really early on others want to help friends from doing it. I wish people would do research a bit more before listening to the cio and cc advice. But what do you expect when baby experts dress it up in books saying it isnt cc when it is. It works, but its not right and does have a lasting effect on a child.


----------



## mumandco

I did it with Tyler on the reccomendation from my hv, tbh there wasn't many tears and it did work but would I do it again? I v much doubt so I'm a lot more sure of myself and take any "advice" that the Hv gives me with a pinch of salt.

I'm not sure exactly why I wouldn't do it again as it worked for Tyler and with no negative effects, I guess I feel that Zack will sleep all night when he's ready rather than being forced,there's a reason why he doesn't sleep all night but until he can tell me the reason and we can work it out together il continue doing what makes us both happy.

Zack has cried himself to sleep twice though and that was when I was in hospital with Tyler for 2 nights and he had to stay with oh,he had never spent a night away from me. Oh tried everything in the end he fell asleep crying in oh's arms.


----------



## cissyhope

Dragonfly said:


> It is sad to hear. I hope this dosnt go in to an explosion of parents who use cc and cio. I seen a lot of parents coming on my facebook page saying that they had done cc and cio knowing no better and effected their bond looking to fix it, some see the signs really early on others want to help friends from doing it. I wish people would do research a bit more before listening to the cio and cc advice. But what do you expect when baby experts dress it up in books saying it isnt cc when it is. It works, but its not right and does have a lasting effect on a child.

 I agree totally. I also a group of friends on FB who do CC and their parenting is lots different to me.I say little things about my parenting but am dying to say more especially on CC but dont know how to without coming across critisizing iukwim they all totally love their babies so its a very touchy subject but i find that with most subjects to do with parenting ,when talking to mums. I find it madness as im so open to listening about different parenting as i want to get it right! its the most amazingly hard but best job i have ever had :haha: i thought about putting a link up but then thought that would just look to in your face :shrug: then i thought,why do i care? its not any thing to do with me but when i hear them talking,i just feel sorry for their LO.We all became friends because we had trouble concieving our LOs so have been through so much together so i dont want to upset any one as they are really nice girls. Hard one eh! x


----------



## Dragonfly

I rather offer information and alternatives but sometimes people want quick fixes and dont believe any damage is done. Some often de friend and get antsy about it as they feel guilty about it anyway. I think health care professionals need to stop spouting this to, remember doctors and health visitors are not trained in getting your baby to sleep its just opinion and anecdotal advice they give. I never done cc and cio and my oldest is so high needs . My boobs where about to fall off with him and that went on a long long time. Now he sleeps a lot longer ! I know he wont have problems in the future sleeping or feel I ever left him. I do remember crying myself to sleep, I didnt bond with parents, even when older I went in to my dark room and cried feeling so scared and alone. I always feel alone to this day and never rely emotionally on my parents.


----------



## BigZai

well my mom pushed me into CIO (i live with her) 
he slept in a bed side sleeper until 6 months and I moved him to ther crib but he would ONLY sleep when swaddled (arms in) which I did until one day I woke up and he was on his belly and I realized that he cannot be swaddled anymore because he might roll over and get stuck unable to move because his arms are in the swaddle.
so I tried to swaddle him with arms out but no luck. 
so I ended up holding him every nap, I didnt mind it because I took that time so sit relax and maybe eat my meal. At night I started co sleeping. Well my mom and I kept fighting about it. 
She said that she did it with all 4 of her kids, that my LO needs to learn how to calm himself down and that he needs to be able to be away from me. She told me that he would end up clingy and whiny and I had to have him CIO. So I took to BNB and got advice from several ladies and I tried it and it didnt work and my mom kept pushing me so I did it.
I let him cry it out and now he will sleep in his crib but he also sometimes cries for 10 min before he sleeps. I still hate it but I still do it, luckily it has not affected our bond and he seems ok, I still would not recomend it but I understand why people do it.


----------



## Arcanegirl

It is a personal decision :shrug: okay so you might find more people in this section who don't do it but there will still be some minority here who do.


----------



## Dragonfly

I think the is just expressing how it makes her feel that is all.


----------



## Janidog

I have a friend who out of desperation had to to CIO (her LO was about 14months old at the time), she was so sleep deprived that it was making her and her LO ill. Since she has done it, they are both healthy and happy.

I have been fortunate that I have never needed to do it, but I could not judge another mama for doing it


----------



## buttonnose82

you know, I wasn't gonna reply but I will :)

It is so easy too sit and judge other parents when in reality I am sure there are areas of ALL our parenting methods that other people won't agree with.

Before I became a parent I said there was alot of things I wouldn't do, in reality it's been different, I have adapted my parenting according too the needs of our family unit.

We did CC with our little man, it was something I always said I wouldn't do, but we tried everything else too help encourage him too learn too self settle and nothing worked, he was over tired and generally a upset & unhappy little boy. We were lucky, it took us only 3 nights and he became a totally different child, he was happy and lively again. Anyone that knows my little man will tell you what a happy & caring little boy he is, he is healthy and emotionally & physically happy, it hasn't caused him any emotional distress, he KNOWS we love him. 

Would we do it again for the little dude? ..... I can't say, because he is a different human being, I won't rule it out if we feel we need too for his health & happiness, but we will make that choice if & when the time comes

I guess what I am saying is don't judge till your in their shoes, we ALL do what WE think is right for OUR family's ...... who is anyone too say if that is right or wrong?


----------



## mamawannabee

I posted this because I have a mommy group acquaintance who was talking about how she formula fed her LO and she "slept through" from day 1, because she "knew" she was full because she was ff not bf so she just let her cry. Yes, I understand mom's turn to it out of desperation, even if I still personally wouldn't do it, I am more understanding of it with older (6 months+) babies where it doesn't seem to have such a negative effect. It was just that she was doing it with her newborn who should never be expected to sleep through. 

I would never have posted this in baby club because I knew the fuss it would cause, but thought here I could vent to some understanding ears. I get why people do it, and didn't say they were bad parents, I was just saying it makes me sad to think of the LO's who don't have a choice but to deal with it. It's not like they are happy to be up and crying either. I have been tempted, I get it, but if my baby is crying, I cry too and then there is 2 of us upset, I would rather be exhausted than have 2 of us fussy and miserable, if that makes sense.


----------



## BigZai

buttonnose82 said:


> you know, I wasn't gonna reply but I will :)
> 
> It is so easy too sit and judge other parents when in reality I am sure there are areas of ALL our parenting methods that other people won't agree with.
> 
> Before I became a parent I said there was alot of things I wouldn't do, in reality it's been different, I have adapted my parenting according too the needs of our family unit.
> 
> We did CC with our little man, it was something I always said I wouldn't do, but we tried everything else too help encourage him too learn too self settle and nothing worked, he was over tired and generally a upset & unhappy little boy. We were lucky, it took us only 3 nights and he became a totally different child, he was happy and lively again. Anyone that knows my little man will tell you what a happy & caring little boy he is, he is healthy and emotionally & physically happy, it hasn't caused him any emotional distress, he KNOWS we love him.
> 
> Would we do it again for the little dude? ..... I can't say, because he is a different human being, I won't rule it out if we feel we need too for his health & happiness, but we will make that choice if & when the time comes
> 
> I guess what I am saying is don't judge till your in their shoes, we ALL do what WE think is right for OUR family's ...... who is anyone too say if that is right or wrong?

I myself think people shouldn't use hand sanatizer and i am extremly pro vaccines
It is very hard not to judge other people but we should do our best not to
Would i do CC again idk i rather not but it did work for my LO
There are always exemptions i say judge the crap out of parents who give there two year old soda or put the LO to bed with juice


----------



## BigZai

mamawannabee said:


> I posted this because I have a mommy group acquaintance who was talking about how she formula fed her LO and she "slept through" from day 1, because she "knew" she was full because she was ff not bf so she just let her cry. Yes, I understand mom's turn to it out of desperation, even if I still personally wouldn't do it, I am more understanding of it with older (6 months+) babies where it doesn't seem to have such a negative effect. It was just that she was doing it with her newborn who should never be expected to sleep through.
> 
> I would never have posted this in baby club because I knew the fuss it would cause, but thought here I could vent to some understanding ears. I get why people do it, and didn't say they were bad parents, I was just saying it makes me sad to think of the LO's who don't have a choice but to deal with it. It's not like they are happy to be up and crying either. I have been tempted, I get it, but if my baby is crying, I cry too and then there is 2 of us upset, I would rather be exhausted than have 2 of us fussy and miserable, if that makes sense.

Well so far reading the responses ppl have not made a huge fuss over this post 
I do agree under 6 months they should never CC unless absolutely necessary, like a colicky baby who has a mother who is considering tossing him out the window. that women who said that he doesnt need to get up is wrong even pro CC doctors agree that newborns should eat every 2 hours even at night
But its not going to kill him he wouldnt have starved he may have issues in the future like adhd but who knows for sure


----------



## lepaskilf

I never CIO with my LO as I prefer to lie with him and enjoy his cuddles, I still do. But at the same time I don't think there is anything wrong with CIO or CC if it is needed by a family.
I'm not sure of the risks to it anyway? Can someone enlighten me? As me, my sis and my bro were all CIO by my mum and we turned out absolutely fine!!! I even practice a lot of AP techniques naturally without realising until I read about it, considering my upbringing of CIO and sleeping in my own cot, and being propped up on the sofa with a bottle!


----------



## Dragonfly

I dont see any judgmental comments here? no name calling or putting any one down? most said that they understand some mums do do it. I may not agree with it all unless disagreeing is judging.


----------



## BigZai

lepaskilf said:


> I never CIO with my LO as I prefer to lie with him and enjoy his cuddles, I still do.



i have him nap in the crib most of the time. he slept in his crib for nap #1 but sometimes its is just so...... peacful and joyful to hold him as he sleeps. So right now during nap #2 of the day im holding him and now regretting it because i am hungry! lol I kinda want to wake him up so i can cook but id rather him not be cranky later
 



Attached Files:







hhh.jpg
File size: 88.4 KB
Views: 4


----------



## OmarsMum

Omar was a good sleeper when he was a baby, & he wasn't from the crying type. He used to self settle & STTN. He started to go though sleep regressions after his 1st birthday due to on going teething. We used to co-sleep in the mornings(his cot was in our room) but when he went through the sleep regression we moved him to our bed full time. He's still in our bed & I still settle him to sleep. I'm laid back, I don't have a routine, I don't care if he doesn't sleep well at night, as we can sleep all morning. I have help from my mum whenever I need a break, DH works from home, so he's always around if I need to sleep during the day. 

We never needed to try any sort of sleep training. 

But I have a friend who has 3 under 2 (twins & a baby 13 months apart). She would go insane if she doesn't CC/ CIO as she can't jump from one kid to another every time one of them cries at night or refuses to sleep, she & her husband work full time. Sleep training & using CC was the only way to get her kids to sleep at night. 

I respect her decision. CC/ CIO is not for us, but it works great for other parents. I respect different parenting styles & I don't judge those who don't agree with our parenting style.


----------



## NaturalMomma

It makes me really sad too :(


----------



## OmiOmen

lepaskilf said:


> I'm not sure of the risks to it anyway? Can someone enlighten me?

I know this is a controversial topic and I am not trying to start an argument here just answering this question with what research has shown. I do not believe I should be attacked by summarizing what the scientific community has shown. I am not trying to attack people who use this method or make them upset. I am however a big believer that parents should know the research out there and them make the decisions they feel are right for their family. :flower:

When a baby is left to cry it has lot of affects in the brain. You can look up exactly what happens if you are interested but basically it has an increase in stress hormones , increased blood pressure in the brain and decreed oxygen. It is suggested that this can lead to being more susceptible to stress in later life, links to being 10 times more likely to have ADHD and chance of a more aggressive personality. The results for the research into the link of increased chance of cot death when used on babies was also statistically significant. 

There is also evidence to suggest it can affect intellectual (slightly lower IQ compared to other children), emotional and social development. Now I feel the need to be a little sceptical here as I personally do not think that this particular research (although I did not read this direct from a journal so it may have been omitted from the third party source) does not consider other factors such who is more likely to use the method and a child's opportunities based on socio-economic circumstances. 

It is often cited that this method can lead to a detached/insecure child and may affect the child/parent bond. There is also the risk that a parent may not notice that their child is crying because they are ill (linking in to not recognising the types of crying due to detached parenting).


----------



## Rachel_C

I hate CIO but I don't blame or judge most of the individual parents who do it (well, apart from those who say "ahhh she's 2.5 days old now, I want a beer, leave her in the basement to cry it out, it'll do her lungs good). I blame and judge society for it. It's just so sad that many parents feel like it is the best or their only option. So many parents are so stressed, so sleep deprived and so isolated that they really do feel they need to do it for their own sanity. If a parent is really at breaking point, of course leaving the baby to cry is a better option than leaving baby in a toilet somewhere! But it's very sad that so many parents are left to feel like that. We don't have the extended families and close communities that we used to have. I truly don't believe that children are 'supposed' to be raised by a set of parents in isolation from everybody else. Mum, sister, aunty, friend, next door neighbour (girl in the cave next door!) are supposed to be there to help out. But they're often not and that's sad.


----------



## buttonnose82

I totally get what your saying but I do also think alot of research should be taken with a pinch of salt as result can very easily be manipulated too show what the researcher wants them too show.

How can they know for certain the it could affect IQ and increase stress in later life? I honestly don't see how because they have no way of assessing these things before they grow up so how could they possibly know the CC or CIO could change it?? (hope that makes sense lol)

Research shouldn't be taken as fact, research showed a link between the MMR and autism, yet more recent research shows no link. And research says that carry a baby forward facing in a sling or pushchair causes stress in later life. My point being, yeah read the research, but I really don't think we should always take it as a given

That's how I see it but I understand others won't agree :flower:


----------



## OmiOmen

I was critical of the research, I offered external factors on the intellectual, social and emotional development. The IQ was tested at age 5 and it was statistically significant results (although not sure what P value they were working to) but I clearly stated what I felt they had not considered social factors that would both make a parent more likely to use the method and a child to have less opportunities. As for how they could find the correlation between CC/CIO and the IQ, that would be a very dull conversation. The research from the cognitive neuroscientists I could not really be critical of, it seemed sound to me. Brain imaging techniques seem a lot more reliable to me than 'parenting experts'. :shrug:

I think we should also remember that Dr Wakefield's paper about the link between a link between the MMR and autism was almost instantly widely discredited, a one off (as in not supported by further research) and he was struck off as a doctor. People do not seem to read research critically, but instead pick and choose which ones they agree with. As for manipulating research, that is an issue but you can be critical of it and often account for that. Also many researchers (maybe not all) do not actually want their work discredited and would rather admit a null hypothesis. A journal article does not just make wild accusations, they have to back it up with research. Bigger issue is the research getting misquoted/seen out of context of the subject as a whole by the media and people thinking what the media is saying is an accurate representation and not reading the original work.

Sorry if this post is a bit rambling. It is not so much about the whole CC/CIO method as it is about how I feel about popular opinions and research.


----------



## lepaskilf

Thank you for answering my question. I know there is a lot of research out there explaining the pro's/con's of CIO/CC but like buttonnose says, it's hard to understand how they have come to those conclusions!

I have never let my LO CIO so I am not sure what state he would be in at that moment in time, but I can guess! And that's why I don't do it, not because of the theories people have on how it can affect them in later life x


----------



## OmiOmen

lepaskilf said:


> it's hard to understand how they have come to those conclusions!

That is very true. I wish there was a way to summarise that but unfortunately research methods and statistical analysis in an academically dense area, not to mention mind-numbingly boring. Do not be fooled into thinking that researchers enjoy carrying out hours of data input or analysis, trust me it is not fun, they do it for the answers it gives in the end. Giving deceptive results can lead to them losing there job so they can not just say anything they like. Academics would rather be seen as accurate and impartial than right, even if it pains them to do so. 

Clearly there can be conflicting research so you have to be very critical of it. I would never suggest any should be taken as fact. But it does seem like people pick the ones they like and toss out the ones they don't. No one argues with the research about negative side effects of smoking (bare in mind before extensive research it was once considered a healthy habit), the research led to changes in policy of where you can/can not smoke, the age you can purchase cigarettes and entitlement to free support to quite. Yet despite the fact the research is just as compelling for the benefits of breastfeeding and negative side effects negative side effects of formula feeding, which of course also led to changes in policy, people say the results are exaggerated. Now I do not care if people smoke (as long as it is not next to me or my son) and I really could not care less how what type of milk people give there kids but I can not understand how people can be see one bit of research as fact and another as people just making things up without actually seeing any limitations/inaccuracies in the work. I am all for the individualization of society to the point of people thinking I am a little too liberal but have always failed to understand popular opinion of a pick'n' mix approach to research. Maybe I need to conduct some research into that. :haha:


----------



## cissyhope

OmiOmen said:


> lepaskilf said:
> 
> 
> it's hard to understand how they have come to those conclusions!
> 
> That is very true. I wish there was a way to summarise that but unfortunately research methods and statistical analysis in an academically dense area, not to mention mind-numbingly boring. Do not be fooled into thinking that researchers enjoy carrying out hours of data input or analysis, trust me it is not fun, they do it for the answers it gives in the end. Giving deceptive results can lead to them losing there job so they can not just say anything they like. Academics would rather be seen as accurate and impartial than right, even if it pains them to do so.
> 
> Clearly there can be conflicting research so you have to be very critical of it. I would never suggest any should be taken as fact. But it does seem like people pick the ones they like and toss out the ones they don't. No one argues with the research about negative side effects of smoking (bare in mind before extensive research it was once considered a healthy habit), the research led to changes in policy of where you can/can not smoke, the age you can purchase cigarettes and entitlement to free support to quite. Yet despite the fact the research is just as compelling for the benefits of breastfeeding and negative side effects negative side effects of formula feeding, which of course also led to changes in policy, people say the results are exaggerated. Now I do not care if people smoke (as long as it is not next to me or my son) and I really could not care less how what type of milk people give there kids but I can not understand how people can be see one bit of research as fact and another as people just making things up without actually seeing any limitations/inaccuracies in the work. I am all for the individualization of society to the point of people thinking I am a little too liberal but have always failed to understand popular opinion of a pick'n' mix approach to research. Maybe I need to conduct some research into that. :haha:Click to expand...

 :thumbup: so agree with you!!!


----------



## modo

We did it when B was younger and totally regret it :nope: It's just not worth it :nope: It was at the advice of a Dr at our local surgery. We both think it's why he is so clingy now as a toddler. 

He rarely wakes up at night now (teething) but when he does DH always goes to him. He also stays with him every night for about 2 hours til he falls asleep. We would never do it again.


----------



## Janidog

Rachel_C said:


> I hate CIO but I don't blame or judge most of the individual parents who do it (well, apart from those who say "ahhh she's 2.5 days old now, I want a beer, leave her in the basement to cry it out, it'll do her lungs good). I blame and judge society for it. It's just so sad that many parents feel like it is the best or their only option. So many parents are so stressed, so sleep deprived and so isolated that they really do feel they need to do it for their own sanity. If a parent is really at breaking point, of course leaving the baby to cry is a better option than leaving baby in a toilet somewhere! But it's very sad that so many parents are left to feel like that. *We don't have the extended families and close communities that we used to have*. I truly don't believe that children are 'supposed' to be raised by a set of parents in isolation from everybody else. Mum, sister, aunty, friend, next door neighbour (girl in the cave next door!) are supposed to be there to help out. But they're often not and that's sad.

I live a 3hr car journey away from my twin sister and my parents, sometimes i miss them and want to be close to them all, but most of the time I have happy that they don't live near me, I am a very independent person and I hate people interfering with my life and the way I bring LO up, I am a much happier parent without having people coming and going and telling me how to bring up my child and how they would do it this way and that way. I remember when LO was around 7 months old and still wasn't STTN but we had got use to it, her advice was to give LO antihistamines at night to make him sleep through as that is what she did a couple of times with us, hence why im glad we don't live near them


----------



## lepaskilf

OmiOmen said:


> lepaskilf said:
> 
> 
> it's hard to understand how they have come to those conclusions!
> 
> That is very true. I wish there was a way to summarise that but unfortunately research methods and statistical analysis in an academically dense area, not to mention mind-numbingly boring. Do not be fooled into thinking that researchers enjoy carrying out hours of data input or analysis, trust me it is not fun, they do it for the answers it gives in the end. Giving deceptive results can lead to them losing there job so they can not just say anything they like. Academics would rather be seen as accurate and impartial than right, even if it pains them to do so.
> 
> Clearly there can be conflicting research so you have to be very critical of it. I would never suggest any should be taken as fact. But it does seem like people pick the ones they like and toss out the ones they don't. No one argues with the research about negative side effects of smoking (bare in mind before extensive research it was once considered a healthy habit), the research led to changes in policy of where you can/can not smoke, the age you can purchase cigarettes and entitlement to free support to quite. Yet despite the fact the research is just as compelling for the benefits of breastfeeding and negative side effects negative side effects of formula feeding, which of course also led to changes in policy, people say the results are exaggerated. Now I do not care if people smoke (as long as it is not next to me or my son) and I really could not care less how what type of milk people give there kids but* I can not understand how people can be see one bit of research as fact and another as people just making things up without actually seeing any limitations/inaccuracies in the work. I am all for the individualization of society to the point of people thinking I am a little too liberal but have always failed to understand popular opinion of a pick'n' mix approach to research. Maybe I need to conduct some research into that. *Click to expand...



Thank you for the research info x

With regards to the smoking vs Breastfeeding research, I'd have thought it would be easier to recognise that smoking is bad for you due to there being more lung cancer/heart disease sufferers in the smoking group than in the non smoking group. But with BF, is there less children with allergies/asthma who were BF than those who were not?........ I just thought people would naturally think BF is better because it's a more natural source of food for their baby?

With CIO/CC.... how many more children are affected by their bonding with parents, or suffer from ADHD compared to those who were never CIO/CC...... is it considerably more, like lung cancer sufferers who smoke compared to those who don't smoke?


----------



## OmiOmen

lepaskilf:

I really am not try to start arguments so want to stay away from the pro-breastfeeding research points. I will leave it at saying there is a lot of longitude research (over many years) into it which does show the benefits. Some of what I have read is summarised by a third party, other stuff I read too long ago to remember the statistics. 

As for the research into that, CIO, smoking or anything else we look for a correlation. It is pretty hard to explain. But loosely speaking the relationship X has with Y (eg; smoking increases the chance of lung cancer). The we look at a P value (probability value) which tells us if we can say that it is happening more than chance would allow for. We can infer statistical significance if it is below 0.01 or 0.05 depending on the discipline (most science would use 0.01 but social sciences have to be more flexible due to human nature and use 0.05). If a P value is <0.01 it basically means that <1% or alternatively this is applicable 99% of the time. Not happens 99% of the time but it proves it is more than just chance (I'll be honest here, I'm finding it really hard to put in to the right words). The smaller the number the better. So we are looking for statistically significant results to support our hypothesis. Although there are different types of tests we can use as statistical analysis for different types of data, but it would get a lot more confusing to go into it and I am far from an expert. Now this is only the case with qualitative research (scientific method with measurable results) with quantitative research (case studies, results open to interpretative) it is quite subjective and we really have to be extra critical of it. 

I am not sure how much of that made sense as I am terrible at trying to get things like this across and like I had said before it is very dull. :wacko:


----------



## aliss

buttonnose82 said:


> I totally get what your saying but I do also think alot of research should be taken with a pinch of salt as result can very easily be manipulated too show what the researcher wants them too show.
> 
> How can they know for certain the it could affect IQ and increase stress in later life? I honestly don't see how because they have no way of assessing these things before they grow up so how could they possibly know the CC or CIO could change it?? (hope that makes sense lol)
> 
> Research shouldn't be taken as fact, research showed a link between the MMR and autism, yet more recent research shows no link. And research says that carry a baby forward facing in a sling or pushchair causes stress in later life. My point being, yeah read the research, but I really don't think we should always take it as a given
> 
> That's how I see it but I understand others won't agree :flower:

I totally agree with you. I don't like CC, I don't like CIO, but I also think that there is a huge line between an exhausted woman who doesn't know what else to do and someone who just shuts the door because she doesn't care and neglects the kid. I had the luxury of not allowing my poor colicky boy cry 24/7 for 6 months but if he was my 3rd,4th, well?? I don't know. 

I consider myself very AP but if one really searches into Sear's stance on the issue, you'll see that there are exceptions made, it's not a no cry at all costs. He talks about the red zone and mother burnout quite indepth.


----------



## Kess

OmiOmen said:


> lepaskilf:
> 
> I really am not try to start arguments so want to stay away from the pro-breastfeeding research points. I will leave it at saying there is a lot of longitude research (over many years) into it which does show the benefits. Some of what I have read is summarised by a third party, other stuff I read too long ago to remember the statistics.
> 
> As for the research into that, CIO, smoking or anything else we look for a correlation. It is pretty hard to explain. But loosely speaking the relationship X has with Y (eg; smoking increases the chance of lung cancer). The we look at a P value (probability value) which tells us if we can say that it is happening more than chance would allow for. We can infer statistical significance if it is below 0.01 or 0.05 depending on the discipline (most science would use 0.01 but social sciences have to be more flexible due to human nature and use 0.05). If a P value is <0.01 it basically means that <1% or alternatively this is applicable 99% of the time. Not happens 99% of the time but it proves it is more than just chance (I'll be honest here, I'm finding it really hard to put in to the right words). The smaller the number the better. So we are looking for statistically significant results to support our hypothesis. Although there are different types of tests we can use as statistical analysis for different types of data, but it would get a lot more confusing to go into it and I am far from an expert. Now this is only the case with *qualitative research (scientific method with measurable results) with quantitative research (case studies, results open to interpretative)* it is quite subjective and we really have to be extra critical of it.
> 
> I am not sure how much of that made sense as I am terrible at trying to get things like this across and like I had said before it is very dull. :wacko:

Ooops, you got your qualitatives and quantitatives mixed up there! :winkwink:
I'm glad I'm not the only one into studies and research etc. I get so mad when people start rubbishing solid scientific research with, "Well, our parents did it and we're fine," or "Well I have two Cavaliers who don't have SM so it can't be a problem for the breed" (most of my obsession with research is dog health and genetics). I keep wanting to yell, "The plural of anecdote is not data!!!" If you want to pick apart the methodology of the study, or try to find a contradictory study, fine, but generalising a tiny fragment of human experience and then giving that generalisation equal ranking with a huge well-conducted study of tens of thousands of subjects and I'm afraid I'm not going to take you seriously. I had that problem with my home birth. The number of people who knew someone who knew someone who died at home (or would have done had they not been in hospital), and used that to say all home births are unsafe, when research totalling tens of thousands of women says it is as safe or even in many cases safer than hospital birth drives me mad.


----------



## mamawannabee

aliss said:


> buttonnose82 said:
> 
> 
> I totally get what your saying but I do also think alot of research should be taken with a pinch of salt as result can very easily be manipulated too show what the researcher wants them too show.
> 
> How can they know for certain the it could affect IQ and increase stress in later life? I honestly don't see how because they have no way of assessing these things before they grow up so how could they possibly know the CC or CIO could change it?? (hope that makes sense lol)
> 
> Research shouldn't be taken as fact, research showed a link between the MMR and autism, yet more recent research shows no link. And research says that carry a baby forward facing in a sling or pushchair causes stress in later life. My point being, yeah read the research, but I really don't think we should always take it as a given
> 
> That's how I see it but I understand others won't agree :flower:
> 
> I totally agree with you. I don't like CC, I don't like CIO, but I also think that there is a huge line between an exhausted woman who doesn't know what else to do and someone who just shuts the door because she doesn't care and neglects the kid. I had the luxury of not allowing my poor colicky boy cry 24/7 for 6 months but if he was my 3rd,4th, well?? I don't know.
> 
> I consider myself very AP but if one really searches into Sear's stance on the issue, *you'll see that there are exceptions made, it's not a no cry at all costs. He talks about the red zone and mother burnout quite indepth*.Click to expand...

I would agree with this, and it is how I feel, obviously if the mother is at the point that she is ready to hurt the baby, or completely neglect LO's needs because she can't handle the crying anymore, better to leave LO for a bit and calm down.


----------



## OmiOmen

Kess said:


> Ooops, you got your qualitatives and quantitatives mixed up there! :winkwink

Your right, thanks for spotting that. I had a headache when I wrote it. I guess it has that affect on me. :dohh:


----------



## lepaskilf

Kess said:


> OmiOmen said:
> 
> 
> lepaskilf:
> 
> I really am not try to start arguments so want to stay away from the pro-breastfeeding research points. I will leave it at saying there is a lot of longitude research (over many years) into it which does show the benefits. Some of what I have read is summarised by a third party, other stuff I read too long ago to remember the statistics.
> 
> As for the research into that, CIO, smoking or anything else we look for a correlation. It is pretty hard to explain. But loosely speaking the relationship X has with Y (eg; smoking increases the chance of lung cancer). The we look at a P value (probability value) which tells us if we can say that it is happening more than chance would allow for. We can infer statistical significance if it is below 0.01 or 0.05 depending on the discipline (most science would use 0.01 but social sciences have to be more flexible due to human nature and use 0.05). If a P value is <0.01 it basically means that <1% or alternatively this is applicable 99% of the time. Not happens 99% of the time but it proves it is more than just chance (I'll be honest here, I'm finding it really hard to put in to the right words). The smaller the number the better. So we are looking for statistically significant results to support our hypothesis. Although there are different types of tests we can use as statistical analysis for different types of data, but it would get a lot more confusing to go into it and I am far from an expert. Now this is only the case with *qualitative research (scientific method with measurable results) with quantitative research (case studies, results open to interpretative)* it is quite subjective and we really have to be extra critical of it.
> 
> I am not sure how much of that made sense as I am terrible at trying to get things like this across and like I had said before it is very dull. :wacko:
> 
> Ooops, you got your qualitatives and quantitatives mixed up there! :winkwink:
> I'm glad I'm not the only one into studies and research etc. I get so mad when people start rubbishing solid scientific research with, "Well, our parents did it and we're fine," or "Well I have two Cavaliers who don't have SM so it can't be a problem for the breed" (most of my obsession with research is dog health and genetics). I keep wanting to yell, "The plural of anecdote is not data!!!" If you want to pick apart the methodology of the study, or try to find a contradictory study, fine, but generalising a tiny fragment of human experience and then giving that generalisation equal ranking with a huge well-conducted study of tens of thousands of subjects and I'm afraid I'm not going to take you seriously. I had that problem with my home birth. The number of people who knew someone who knew someone who died at home (or would have done had they not been in hospital), and used that to say all home births are unsafe, when research totalling tens of thousands of women says it is as safe or even in many cases safer than hospital birth drives me mad.Click to expand...

I understand that there is alot of research done into everything these days, and it is well conducted and very well backed.

However, if someone has been affected by something personally, such as a relative dying during a home birth then you can't blame them for feeling that it is dangerous. Or someone smoking who has never had a close relative/friend suffer from a smoking related disease, will happily keep on smoking as they don't see a problem, despite the extensive research. Or the desperate parent who CIOs as lots of people around her have done it and their children are fine.

Yes the research is important, but personal experience will have much more of an influence on people. It's a coping/survival mechanism that humans are born with. You can't get annoyed with that! x


----------



## Kess

mamawannabee said:


> aliss said:
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you. I don't like CC, I don't like CIO, but I also think that there is a huge line between an exhausted woman who doesn't know what else to do and someone who just shuts the door because she doesn't care and neglects the kid. I had the luxury of not allowing my poor colicky boy cry 24/7 for 6 months but if he was my 3rd,4th, well?? I don't know.
> 
> I consider myself very AP but if one really searches into Sear's stance on the issue, *you'll see that there are exceptions made, it's not a no cry at all costs. He talks about the red zone and mother burnout quite indepth*.
> 
> I would agree with this, and it is how I feel, obviously if the mother is at the point that she is ready to hurt the baby, or completely neglect LO's needs because she can't handle the crying anymore, better to leave LO for a bit and calm down.Click to expand...

I think there's a huge difference between putting LO somewhere safe and going to cool down yourself if you're at the end of your tether, compared with deciding LO _should_ "learn to self-soothe" or whatever. One is done for the safety of the baby and is hopefully a very rare occurrance (if I needed to actually leave Ro screaming for me in order to calm down on a regular basis I'd be changing my life(style) in whatever way necessary to make sure I didn't get in that state again). The other is based in our culture's obsession with making babies fit in with our lives rather than us with them, and pushing them to grow up and be independent too quickly. Like I've said I can totally understand a desperate mother resorting to it, I blame the HCPs and older relatives and our culture as a whole.



lepaskilf said:


> Kess said:
> 
> 
> Ooops, you got your qualitatives and quantitatives mixed up there! :winkwink:
> I'm glad I'm not the only one into studies and research etc. I get so mad when people start rubbishing solid scientific research with, "Well, our parents did it and we're fine," or "Well I have two Cavaliers who don't have SM so it can't be a problem for the breed" (most of my obsession with research is dog health and genetics). I keep wanting to yell, "The plural of anecdote is not data!!!" If you want to pick apart the methodology of the study, or try to find a contradictory study, fine, but generalising a tiny fragment of human experience and then giving that generalisation equal ranking with a huge well-conducted study of tens of thousands of subjects and I'm afraid I'm not going to take you seriously. I had that problem with my home birth. The number of people who knew someone who knew someone who died at home (or would have done had they not been in hospital), and used that to say all home births are unsafe, when research totalling tens of thousands of women says it is as safe or even in many cases safer than hospital birth drives me mad.
> 
> I understand that there is alot of research done into everything these days, and it is well conducted and very well backed.
> 
> However, if someone has been affected by something personally, such as a relative dying during a home birth then you can't blame them for feeling that it is dangerous. Or someone smoking who has never had a close relative/friend suffer from a smoking related disease, will happily keep on smoking as they don't see a problem, despite the extensive research. Or the desperate parent who CIOs as lots of people around her have done it and their children are fine.
> 
> Yes the research is important, but personal experience will have much more of an influence on people. It's a coping/survival mechanism that humans are born with. You can't get annoyed with that! xClick to expand...

Yes I can lol. I do understand why people can _feel_ things based on their own experience, and e.g. not want a HB themselves or feel uncomfortable if a wife/sister/friend wanted one, because they knew someone it didn't turn out well for, but what I object to is people making "factual" statements based on that, trying to convince other people their feeling is objective truth, e.g. "Homebirths are dangerous! Only irresponsible people have HB! Why would you want to put your unborn baby at risk?!"

Surely intelligent people can acknowledge their own experience isn't necessarily representative and draw a line between what we feel ourselves and what is proven fact?


----------



## lepaskilf

Kess said:


> mamawannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aliss said:
> 
> 
> I totally agree with you. I don't like CC, I don't like CIO, but I also think that there is a huge line between an exhausted woman who doesn't know what else to do and someone who just shuts the door because she doesn't care and neglects the kid. I had the luxury of not allowing my poor colicky boy cry 24/7 for 6 months but if he was my 3rd,4th, well?? I don't know.
> 
> I consider myself very AP but if one really searches into Sear's stance on the issue, *you'll see that there are exceptions made, it's not a no cry at all costs. He talks about the red zone and mother burnout quite indepth*.
> 
> I would agree with this, and it is how I feel, obviously if the mother is at the point that she is ready to hurt the baby, or completely neglect LO's needs because she can't handle the crying anymore, better to leave LO for a bit and calm down.Click to expand...
> 
> I think there's a huge difference between putting LO somewhere safe and going to cool down yourself if you're at the end of your tether, compared with deciding LO _should_ "learn to self-soothe" or whatever. One is done for the safety of the baby and is hopefully a very rare occurrance (if I needed to actually leave Ro screaming for me in order to calm down on a regular basis I'd be changing my life(style) in whatever way necessary to make sure I didn't get in that state again). The other is based in our culture's obsession with making babies fit in with our lives rather than us with them, and pushing them to grow up and be independent too quickly. Like I've said I can totally understand a desperate mother resorting to it, I blame the HCPs and older relatives and our culture as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> lepaskilf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kess said:
> 
> 
> Ooops, you got your qualitatives and quantitatives mixed up there! :winkwink:
> I'm glad I'm not the only one into studies and research etc. I get so mad when people start rubbishing solid scientific research with, "Well, our parents did it and we're fine," or "Well I have two Cavaliers who don't have SM so it can't be a problem for the breed" (most of my obsession with research is dog health and genetics). I keep wanting to yell, "The plural of anecdote is not data!!!" If you want to pick apart the methodology of the study, or try to find a contradictory study, fine, but generalising a tiny fragment of human experience and then giving that generalisation equal ranking with a huge well-conducted study of tens of thousands of subjects and I'm afraid I'm not going to take you seriously. I had that problem with my home birth. The number of people who knew someone who knew someone who died at home (or would have done had they not been in hospital), and used that to say all home births are unsafe, when research totalling tens of thousands of women says it is as safe or even in many cases safer than hospital birth drives me mad.Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that there is alot of research done into everything these days, and it is well conducted and very well backed.
> 
> However, if someone has been affected by something personally, such as a relative dying during a home birth then you can't blame them for feeling that it is dangerous. Or someone smoking who has never had a close relative/friend suffer from a smoking related disease, will happily keep on smoking as they don't see a problem, despite the extensive research. Or the desperate parent who CIOs as lots of people around her have done it and their children are fine.
> 
> Yes the research is important, but personal experience will have much more of an influence on people. It's a coping/survival mechanism that humans are born with. You can't get annoyed with that! xClick to expand...
> 
> Yes I can lol. I do understand why people can _feel_ things based on their own experience, and e.g. not want a HB themselves or feel uncomfortable if a wife/sister/friend wanted one, because they knew someone it didn't turn out well for, but what I object to is people making "factual" statements based on that, trying to convince other people their feeling is objective truth, e.g. "Homebirths are dangerous! Only irresponsible people have HB! Why would you want to put your unborn baby at risk?!"
> 
> Surely intelligent people can acknowledge their own experience isn't necessarily representative and draw a line between what we feel ourselves and what is proven fact?Click to expand...

You're right, I completely agree with you there.... I think as natural parents we have all been there when someone tries to inflict what they think it fact on us, when actually the research shows different such as CIO/HB/Co-Sleeping etc x


----------



## Weezie123

It's funny I wanted to post about how sad it makes me I hear about CC or CIO comments like he/she only cried for 15/20/30/45 mins etc followed by "keep going, you're doing brilliantly" comments it really breaks my heart. Also when people say "my baby didn't want to be held/rocked from birth" so I had to leave him/her to cry or babies "need" to cry to settle or being in the room makes my baby cry more so I just leave them to it. Maybe it's a case of disconnection or not reading their signs? Who knows. I didn't post it originally as I didn't want to upset people but it's been brought up now anyway. I'm sure it's ok to be upset by it. I'm not sure there's much wrong with not wanting to leave a baby to cry if it can be helped. 

All this discussion about long term damage or not seems to miss the point. The baby is hurting then and there, does that not matter as long as the long term goal of sleep is reached quickly? The don't look the baby in the eye and don't pick it up techniques also upset me. Who invented this stuff? Surely it doesn't come naturally to a mother. I do feel like of you don't like it you are seen as "judgemental" but human nature does give you an internal compass of what you like and don't like.

I'm no saint I have had to pass my baby to my husband on many occasions when he has been hard to settle but if he hadn't been there I would have just persevered at comforting him. Luckily in being a demanding child he has shown me the way by forcing me into closeness.

I am convinced if the pressures of returning to work and having a baby sleep through and the expectations of mothers about their babies sleep were more realisic goals and mothers had more outside support from extended families less babies would be left to cry.

In the case of mother burn out its surely still not the best solution or only solution and once again it puts the mothers emotional needs first above the babys. The baby comes second as it can't verbalise its sadness. Surely somewhat softer approaches can be found, like changing the perception of the babies sleep and providing breaks for the mother where she can catch up on some sleep. Also cosleeping is a wonderful sleep tool, even if the baby continues to wake, I find it sad when a mother would rather let her baby cry than have it sleep in her bed as it's a place for her and her husband only.

This is purely my opinion and my feelings. I've not had an unbroken night of sleep for 9 months and only one night ever did my baby wake less than 6 times. In the first few months my sleep deprivation nearly drove me over the edge!


----------



## mamawannabee

Weezie123 said:


> It's funny I wanted to post about how sad it makes me I hear about CC or CIO comments like he/she only cried for 15/20/30/45 mins etc followed by "keep going, you're doing brilliantly" comments it really breaks my heart. Also when people say "my baby didn't want to be held/rocked from birth" so I had to leave him/her to cry or babies "need" to cry to settle or being in the room makes my baby cry more so I just leave them to it. Maybe it's a case of disconnection or not reading their signs? Who knows. I didn't post it originally as I didn't want to upset people but it's been brought up now anyway. I'm sure it's ok to be upset by it. I'm not sure there's much wrong with not wanting to leave a baby to cry if it can be helped.
> 
> All this discussion about long term damage or not seems to miss the point. The baby is hurting then and there, does that not matter as long as the long term goal of sleep is reached quickly? The don't look the baby in the eye and don't pick it up techniques also upset me. Who invented this stuff? Surely it doesn't come naturally to a mother. I do feel like of you don't like it you are seen as "judgemental" but human nature does give you an internal compass of what you like and don't like.
> 
> I'm no saint I have had to pass my baby to my husband on many occasions when he has been hard to settle but if he hadn't been there I would have just persevered at comforting him. Luckily in being a demanding child he has shown me the way by forcing me into closeness.
> 
> I am convinced if the pressures of returning to work and having a baby sleep through and the expectations of mothers about their babies sleep were more realisic goals and mothers had more outside support from extended families less babies would be left to cry.
> 
> In the case of mother burn out its surely still not the best solution or only solution and once again it puts the mothers emotional needs first above the babys. The baby comes second as it can't verbalise its sadness. Surely somewhat softer approaches can be found, like changing the perception of the babies sleep and providing breaks for the mother where she can catch up on some sleep. Also cosleeping is a wonderful sleep tool, even if the baby continues to wake, I find it sad when a mother would rather let her baby cry than have it sleep in her bed as it's a place for her and her husband only.
> 
> This is purely my opinion and my feelings. I've not had an unbroken night of sleep for 9 months and only one night ever did my baby wake less than 6 times. In the first few months my sleep deprivation nearly drove me over the edge!

Thank you for that, you put what I feel into much more eloquent words. :flower: I'm not normally one to post anything really controversial, but this just really gets to me.


----------



## BigZai

Weezie123 said:


> It's funny I wanted to post about how sad it makes me I hear about CC or CIO comments like he/she only cried for 15/20/30/45 mins etc followed by "keep going, you're doing brilliantly" comments it really breaks my heart. Also when people say "my baby didn't want to be held/rocked from birth" so I had to leave him/her to cry or babies "need" to cry to settle or being in the room makes my baby cry more so I just leave them to it. Maybe it's a case of disconnection or not reading their signs? Who knows. I didn't post it originally as I didn't want to upset people but it's been brought up now anyway. I'm sure it's ok to be upset by it. I'm not sure there's much wrong with not wanting to leave a baby to cry if it can be helped.
> 
> All this discussion about long term damage or not seems to miss the point. The baby is hurting then and there, does that not matter as long as the long term goal of sleep is reached quickly? The don't look the baby in the eye and don't pick it up techniques also upset me. Who invented this stuff? Surely it doesn't come naturally to a mother. I do feel like of you don't like it you are seen as "judgemental" but human nature does give you an internal compass of what you like and don't like.
> 
> I'm no saint I have had to pass my baby to my husband on many occasions when he has been hard to settle but if he hadn't been there I would have just persevered at comforting him. Luckily in being a demanding child he has shown me the way by forcing me into closeness.
> 
> I am convinced if the pressures of returning to work and having a baby sleep through and the expectations of mothers about their babies sleep were more realisic goals and mothers had more outside support from extended families less babies would be left to cry.
> 
> In the case of mother burn out its surely still not the best solution or only solution and once again it puts the mothers emotional needs first above the babys. The baby comes second as it can't verbalise its sadness. Surely somewhat softer approaches can be found, like changing the perception of the babies sleep and providing breaks for the mother where she can catch up on some sleep. Also cosleeping is a wonderful sleep tool, even if the baby continues to wake, I find it sad when a mother would rather let her baby cry than have it sleep in her bed as it's a place for her and her husband only.
> 
> This is purely my opinion and my feelings. I've not had an unbroken night of sleep for 9 months and only one night ever did my baby wake less than 6 times. In the first few months my sleep deprivation nearly drove me over the edge!

First off you mention there were times when you had to pass the baby over to your husband. NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THAT CHOICE many women even some men are left to raise a baby alone due to death or breaking up or whatever the case. Its great for you to have that ability but many of us don't I sure as heck do not have a husband to take the baby when I am tired.

Secondly, Co-sleeping may work for some people but there are people who shouldn't. Deep sleepers, obese, sleep deprived, people who smoke in their bedroom, too small of a bed and even depending on the mattress you shouldn't co-sleep. There are cases where babies have died co-sleeping because of the parent rolling over. I am not anti co-sleeping I have been doing it since my son was 6 months but I understand thats not a solution for all. Also the people who decide not to co-sleep shouldn't be called selfish because they choose that.

For you to say "In the case of mother burn out its surely still not the best solution or only solution and once again it puts the mothers emotional needs first above the babys." is just ignorant. Imagine a women who is severly sleep deprived and has no one else to give the baby to at the end of her rope. She may fear sleeping with the baby because she might not wake up if she rolls on top of him. She feels tired and upset and shes crying with the baby and she can not help thinking "If he could just shut up" or thinking worse. People in this situation might harm the baby and in that case its better for the baby to cry while she gathers herself then be killed. 

Jeez, you really ticked me off with your self righteous crap. Oh I feel sad for every poor baby who has to cry for a half hour. Their lives are a heck of a lot better then the babies who starve and look like skeletons. I am sure that in 3rd world countries mothers would rather have their children cry for a bit then have to see them starve. 

If your going to say or do anything about something why don't you spend your time trying to raise money to help the starving children then try to shame parents for their decisions.

Oh and Co-sleeping doesn't work if your kid is at a day care or if you are busy and cant lay down with them at nap time. Co-sleeping just like CIO isn't a solution for everything


----------



## Vickie

thread closed per OP's request


----------

