Would you let a newborn cry it out?

[pinklightbulb]

I was never left to cry and have a myriad of attachment, anxiety and OCD issues. How do you prove it was CIO that causes these kinds of problems in adulthood? You can't. I'm a good example. Mentally, I'm a mess, but it wasn't caused by CIO, because it was never done to me. I don't buy it. Sorry.

 

[hubblybubbly]

As for dads, bless them, I don't think they've always got the instincts and also the time/inclination to research in the same way mums do, that doesn't make them bad dads at all.

OH said yesterday about our 5 weeks old who won't be put down to sleep during the day anywhere, "if she's fed and her bums clean put her in the swing, and if she cries she cries and she'll learn to be a good girl"....doh! She's not even our first baby!

He's not a bad dad just a bit of a dimbo, parenting websites or books aren't his thing, he goes mainly with what his mum tells him is the right thing to do, until I decide otherwise then he'll follow what I want to the letter before coming on board a few weeks later...he now LOVES bedhaaring with our eldest despite initial protests and "we must get her in her own bed" because that's what his idealistic head was telling him, and his experiences of seeing babies was limited to the way they are portrayed in films and on TV (not the parenting/super nanny type ones)

He happens to be an awesome dad, does lots of fun stuff, lots of rough and tumble play (with the biggun) and dad stuff...his idea of a fun activity for her is washing his car, which to be fair it is! Whereas I like to take her to structured and educational activities, net result she gets a good balance, not a male mummy!

Wow waffling sorry.

 

[mrs_park]

I just think it's perfectly natural to not want to/be able to sleep on your own. I know I cannot sleep without DH and if he's away for work or whatever I have to have the tv on to fall asleep (though not so much recently since DS sleeps in our room). I just need the security of knowing he is there and to be able to touch him. If I need that as a fully grown 27 year old woman, how could I expect a small child to have any less of a need for comfort at night.

Not to mention, how many people do you know that struggle to get to sleep? I know TONNES and many people who resort to sleeping tablets at night or who are up and down at night or on Facebook in the early hours because they can't sleep.

Were these people sleep trained as an baby? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not but it just seems odd to me that there is soooo much pressure on babies to fall asleep on their own and stay that way for 12 hours when I don't know many adults who can't do that.

My hope in the method we approach bedtime with is that we are raising a little person who understands that sleep is a safe, enjoyable experience and hopefully that sets him up for a lifetime of good sleep.

 

[Button#]

I'm glad your OH is on your side now OP. it's important to have that support especially in the first few months when you're finding your feet.

 

[twobecome3]

I just think it's perfectly natural to not want to/be able to sleep on your own. I know I cannot sleep without DH and if he's away for work or whatever I have to have the tv on to fall asleep (though not so much recently since DS sleeps in our room). I just need the security of knowing he is there and to be able to touch him. If I need that as a fully grown 27 year old woman, how could I expect a small child to have any less of a need for comfort at night.

Not to mention, how many people do you know that struggle to get to sleep? I know TONNES and many people who resort to sleeping tablets at night or who are up and down at night or on Facebook in the early hours because they can't sleep.

Were these people sleep trained as an baby? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not but it just seems odd to me that there is soooo much pressure on babies to fall asleep on their own and stay that way for 12 hours when I don't know many adults who can't do that.

My hope in the method we approach bedtime with is that we are raising a little person who understands that sleep is a safe, enjoyable experience and hopefully that sets him up for a lifetime of good sleep.

thankyou for saying this! so true!

 

[jd83]

[My hope in the method we approach bedtime with is that we are raising a little person who understands that sleep is a safe, enjoyable experience and hopefully that sets him up for a lifetime of good sleep.[/QUOTE]

I love this. well said

 

[jd83]

That said (about my LO's sleep), I do try to keep in mind that sleep training is really only about self settling. He may still need a feed in the middle of the night for a long time, even if he self settles from it afterward. So while I may teach him to self settle, that doesn't guarantee me that I I'll get a full night's sleep until HE is ready to drop that feed, and that's okay! Like I said thankfully nights are USUALLY okay, but I do think I'd be a better wife & mom if I could just have a break some days in the form of a napping baby (for more than 20 minutes!).

SOooo true. I wish more moms would realize this. Even those who are strong advocates of sleep training when age appropriate need to keep in mind that sleep training doesn't necessarily mean they won't wake up needing something at some point in the night. Even after we had done CC, my boys still woke occasionally to feed or need a diaper change, etc. I always gave them a few minutes to see if they would self settle, and if they didn't, then clearly they were needing something so I went to take care of them.

 

[MommyJogger]

I was never left to cry and have a myriad of attachment, anxiety and OCD issues. How do you prove it was CIO that causes these kinds of problems in adulthood? You can't. I'm a good example. Mentally, I'm a mess, but it wasn't caused by CIO, because it was never done to me. I don't buy it. Sorry.

No one ever said that cio is the only thing that could cause these things, though. You probably weren't severely physically abused as a child, either, but we know that physical abuse can also cause your symptoms. Just because you have the symptoms without one of the possible causes doesn't debunk it as a possible cause.
Frankly, if I had anxiety issues, I'd be much less inclined to cio in case there's a genetic link and my baby were having uncontrollable anxiety problems causing the wakefulness at nighttime.

 

[ispeakinsongs]

nope I wouldnt

 

[overcomer79]

It was either let my almost 4 month old CIO in the end, or I was going to flip and walk out and never come back, or worse, one day. I got so close to shaking my youngest son, that I *am* pro-CIO in some cases, like that one. I'd rather take the risk of *maybe* affecting my kid psychologically later in life (and there is no proof CIO harms either way) than end up with a dead one, because in a moment of sleep-induced insanity, I did something irreversible. It happens. I am a good mother. But in a moment of pure desperation, I put hands on my youngest son to shake him after two days and nights of no sleep at all. Thank God I realised what I was doing, and just let him CIO before I went through with it. That's all I can say. I walked away, and let him CIO, and who knows what I would have done otherwise. I dread to think about it. CIO isn't always evil. Like aliss, I made a horrible mistake, much worse than hers of leaving her newborn to cry, and if I hadn't left Liam to CIO when I did, I don't want to think about what a different result that moment could have had.

I actually got accused of shaking dd when she was a newborn by a pediatric nurse because she would NEVER settle for us. It would be 3 am and I would put her in her crib (night after night) and go outside and cry from pure exhaustion and frustration. Dh was in the same boat. We both worked and went months on zero sleep. I felt more of a lousy mom than I did before because I was accused of "shaking her in my sleep deprived state". I was with it enough to know that didn't happen as they advocate if you are frustrated, walk away!

 

[Magsy]

There have actually been precious few studies done on sleep training and for me, that's where a large part of the problem lies. However, the research that is there doesn't support extinction sleep training as a safe or effective method. It's been shown to reduce stress signaling and has been shown to be statistically ineffective by 6mo after training has taken place. There is a scientific consensus on the harm of high levels of stress on developing brains. Sleep training causes infants to stop signalling their stress, even though they still feel it, which disrupts the ability of the adult caregiver to sooth such stress. While I'm not going to argue that cio will cause a baby to become a serial killer or a moron, it's generally understood that any straying from the conditions in which our bodies evolved to perform best under will result in disimproved outcomes. And cio/cc/ferberizing/etc is a huge leap from what humans evolved to expect from caregivers.

You summed up the problem with infant sleep theories in your first sentence: precious few studies have been done. There are also just as many studies that say sleep training is safe as there are that say it's not. We can argue and throw studies out from both sides of the argument all day, but in the end the scientific community doesn't know for sure. Because of that, it does come down to the mother to make the right decision for her family based on her knowledge of her child.

High levels of stress are harmful on a developing brain. However, the anti-crying community uses this fact in misleading ways. The babies that the stress studies were done on were abused and neglected. You cannot turn around and say that babies left to cry for a few nights are in the same category. Continual, sustained abuse is not even in the same ballpark as sleep training regardless of any feelings by those who find the process distasteful. Objectively, they are two completely different circumstances.

I am only pro-sleep training in certain situations. I do think it is overused. However, if used properly I think it can be beneficial. Saying that it will cause any unseen or long term damage is misleading because you cannot prove it. In fact, there are several large studies that have found otherwise. The best any mother can do is make a choice based on her individual child and hope that the next generation will have better answers.

 

[nevernormal]

I prefer to sleep on my own... I sleep SO much better when DH is away! And I never had trouble falling asleep until after LO was born, just recently really after I got through the hazy newborn stage. I think I was so tired through pregnancy & the newborn stage that I didn't really HAVE to try to fall asleep, and I'm out of practice!!!

 

[Shadowy Lady]

There have actually been precious few studies done on sleep training and for me, that's where a large part of the problem lies. However, the research that is there doesn't support extinction sleep training as a safe or effective method. It's been shown to reduce stress signaling and has been shown to be statistically ineffective by 6mo after training has taken place. There is a scientific consensus on the harm of high levels of stress on developing brains. Sleep training causes infants to stop signalling their stress, even though they still feel it, which disrupts the ability of the adult caregiver to sooth such stress. While I'm not going to argue that cio will cause a baby to become a serial killer or a moron, it's generally understood that any straying from the conditions in which our bodies evolved to perform best under will result in disimproved outcomes. And cio/cc/ferberizing/etc is a huge leap from what humans evolved to expect from caregivers.

You summed up the problem with infant sleep theories in your first sentence: precious few studies have been done. There are also just as many studies that say sleep training is safe as there are that say it's not. We can argue and throw studies out from both sides of the argument all day, but in the end the scientific community doesn't know for sure. Because of that, it does come down to the mother to make the right decision for her family based on her knowledge of her child.

High levels of stress are harmful on a developing brain. However, the anti-crying community uses this fact in misleading ways. The babies that the stress studies were done on were abused and neglected. You cannot turn around and say that babies left to cry for a few nights are in the same category. Continual, sustained abuse is not even in the same ballpark as sleep training regardless of any feelings by those who find the process distasteful. Objectively, they are two completely different circumstances.

I am only pro-sleep training in certain situations. I do think it is overused. However, if used properly I think it can be beneficial. Saying that it will cause any unseen or long term damage is misleading because you cannot prove it. In fact, there are several large studies that have found otherwise. The best any mother can do is make a choice based on her individual child and hope that the next generation will have better answers.

I agree. I don't like how these threads always become about bashing sleep trainers or saying that those of us who used it "may" have psychologically damaged our children. I've seen this kinda argument a lot on here so it doesn't bother me like it used to but there are newer members who could be scared off for nothing and that is just not right.

Oh ya, and I tried the no cry solution sleep book on my baby first and she cried faaaar more than when we used Ferber. It also didn't even work and her sleep didn't change until we did CC>

 

[MommyJogger]

There have actually been precious few studies done on sleep training and for me, that's where a large part of the problem lies. However, the research that is there doesn't support extinction sleep training as a safe or effective method. It's been shown to reduce stress signaling and has been shown to be statistically ineffective by 6mo after training has taken place. There is a scientific consensus on the harm of high levels of stress on developing brains. Sleep training causes infants to stop signalling their stress, even though they still feel it, which disrupts the ability of the adult caregiver to sooth such stress. While I'm not going to argue that cio will cause a baby to become a serial killer or a moron, it's generally understood that any straying from the conditions in which our bodies evolved to perform best under will result in disimproved outcomes. And cio/cc/ferberizing/etc is a huge leap from what humans evolved to expect from caregivers.

You summed up the problem with infant sleep theories in your first sentence: precious few studies have been done. There are also just as many studies that say sleep training is safe as there are that say it's not. We can argue and throw studies out from both sides of the argument all day, but in the end the scientific community doesn't know for sure. Because of that, it does come down to the mother to make the right decision for her family based on her knowledge of her child.

High levels of stress are harmful on a developing brain. However, the anti-crying community uses this fact in misleading ways. The babies that the stress studies were done on were abused and neglected. You cannot turn around and say that babies left to cry for a few nights are in the same category. Continual, sustained abuse is not even in the same ballpark as sleep training regardless of any feelings by those who find the process distasteful. Objectively, they are two completely different circumstances.

I am only pro-sleep training in certain situations. I do think it is overused. However, if used properly I think it can be beneficial. Saying that it will cause any unseen or long term damage is misleading because you cannot prove it. In fact, there are several large studies that have found otherwise. The best any mother can do is make a choice based on her individual child and hope that the next generation will have better answers.

Did you read the link? Do you even bother reading the studies at all? Do you critically evaluate them in the least? Because every single study saying "there is no harm" fails to use any physiological marker as an indicator. Every single one of them use parent reported attachment, stress, and sleep quality as a measurement of harm. Every study that says "there could be harm long term, there is harm short term" uses either physiological measurements of stress or blind-reported independent evaluations of attachment and dyad interaction.
Everyone strawmans the extreme stress studies saying that they're not comparable to cio, but completely ignore the plethora of published work on mild-to-moderate levels of stress that also point to disimproved attachment, cognitive function, and stress management.
ETA: to bolded: Pro-cio-ers always say that baby only cries for a few nights. This completely ignores that it's been shown that signalling stops, stress does not. Just because they stop telling you about their stress doesn't mean it's not there. The other study based on mother-reported sleep difficulties also shows that sometime between 4w and 6mo after training has taken place, the infants made to cio and the infants with mothers who wio report comparable sleep reports-- meaning that either sleep would have sorted itself in that time or the cio babies stopped sleeping as 'well'. A majority of the cio families had had to sleep train again within the 6mo. So it's not a few nights for most families. It's who knows how many nights of unsignaled stress, to be repeated again when the training wears off.
ETA again: I have no interest in bashing the people, but I will bash the methods you may choose to use. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[babyhopes2010]

hell no! not a newborn

BUT yes i didnt rush to my daughter when she was screaming at 6 months.

 

[jd83]

There have actually been precious few studies done on sleep training and for me, that's where a large part of the problem lies. However, the research that is there doesn't support extinction sleep training as a safe or effective method. It's been shown to reduce stress signaling and has been shown to be statistically ineffective by 6mo after training has taken place. There is a scientific consensus on the harm of high levels of stress on developing brains. Sleep training causes infants to stop signalling their stress, even though they still feel it, which disrupts the ability of the adult caregiver to sooth such stress. While I'm not going to argue that cio will cause a baby to become a serial killer or a moron, it's generally understood that any straying from the conditions in which our bodies evolved to perform best under will result in disimproved outcomes. And cio/cc/ferberizing/etc is a huge leap from what humans evolved to expect from caregivers.

You summed up the problem with infant sleep theories in your first sentence: precious few studies have been done. There are also just as many studies that say sleep training is safe as there are that say it's not. We can argue and throw studies out from both sides of the argument all day, but in the end the scientific community doesn't know for sure. Because of that, it does come down to the mother to make the right decision for her family based on her knowledge of her child.

High levels of stress are harmful on a developing brain. However, the anti-crying community uses this fact in misleading ways. The babies that the stress studies were done on were abused and neglected. You cannot turn around and say that babies left to cry for a few nights are in the same category. Continual, sustained abuse is not even in the same ballpark as sleep training regardless of any feelings by those who find the process distasteful. Objectively, they are two completely different circumstances.

I am only pro-sleep training in certain situations. I do think it is overused. However, if used properly I think it can be beneficial. Saying that it will cause any unseen or long term damage is misleading because you cannot prove it. In fact, there are several large studies that have found otherwise. The best any mother can do is make a choice based on her individual child and hope that the next generation will have better answers.

Did you read the link? Do you even bother reading the studies at all? Do you critically evaluate them in the least? Because every single study saying "there is no harm" fails to use any physiological marker as an indicator. Every single one of them use parent reported attachment, stress, and sleep quality as a measurement of harm. Every study that says "there could be harm long term, there is harm short term" uses either physiological measurements of stress or blind-reported independent evaluations of attachment and dyad interaction.
Everyone strawmans the extreme stress studies saying that they're not comparable to cio, but completely ignore the plethora of published work on mild-to-moderate levels of stress that also point to disimproved attachment, cognitive function, and stress management.
ETA: to bolded: Pro-cio-ers always say that baby only cries for a few nights. This completely ignores that it's been shown that signalling stops, stress does not. Just because they stop telling you about their stress doesn't mean it's not there. The other study based on mother-reported sleep difficulties also shows that sometime between 4w and 6mo after training has taken place, the infants made to cio and the infants with mothers who wio report comparable sleep reports-- meaning that either sleep would have sorted itself in that time or the cio babies stopped sleeping as 'well'. A majority of the cio families had had to sleep train again within the 6mo. So it's not a few nights for most families. It's who knows how many nights of unsignaled stress, to be repeated again when the training wears off.
ETA again: I have no interest in bashing the people, but I will bash the methods you may choose to use. Please don't confuse the two.

I don't find this the least bit helpful. By bashing the methods that many on here found to have worked wonderfully for their babies, you are pushing your own beliefs on others rather than offering advice/opinion. There's a difference between offering advice, as well as your opinion on something, and pushing your beliefs down others throats and making them feel awful if they choose to do things differently. Bashing the method? Its basically the same as bashing the parent who chose it when you continually go on about it.

I realize you feel very strongly about it, otherwise you wouldn't have so much to say about it. But from the perspective of someone who is pro-sleep training when age appropriate and when sleep needs indicate a need for it (I don't always think its needed. Some babies sleep just fine, with only a few regular wakings to feed, etc), I feel the benefits can definitely far outweigh the cons (crying, obviously, and feeling stressed). I did CC with my boys around 6-7 months old when they were continually waking beyond needs for feedings or diaper changes, and I have to say, the change in their demeanor and attitude from getting such a good night sleep cannot be discounted. They were immediately much happier babies from not being overtired from lack of good sleep. I was better able to care for them because I wasn't having to get up every 2 hours all night long, only 1-2 times a night after CC. Having happier babies and a happier mommy who could care for her boys better? That's what matters to me. I really dislike that you are making so many moms feel badly about their parenting decisions when it has such a positive impact on so many families.

 

[MiniKiwi]

I haven't read most of this thread but I just wanted to say that a moby wrap (baby carrier) is a real life saver when they're tiny and need to be next to you. It was, and still is, the best thing I ever bought for my daughter.

Making a newborn CIO is never ok. You're the mama, trusting your instincts is the right way to go

 

[HanaK]

I was never left to cry and have a myriad of attachment, anxiety and OCD issues. How do you prove it was CIO that causes these kinds of problems in adulthood? You can't. I'm a good example. Mentally, I'm a mess, but it wasn't caused by CIO, because it was never done to me. I don't buy it. Sorry.

No one ever said that cio is the only thing that could cause these things, though. You probably weren't severely physically abused as a child, either, but we know that physical abuse can also cause your symptoms. Just because you have the symptoms without one of the possible causes doesn't debunk it as a possible cause.
Frankly, if I had anxiety issues, I'd be much less inclined to cio in case there's a genetic link and my baby were having uncontrollable anxiety problems causing the wakefulness at nighttime.

Not much gets me really cross but this post is disgraceful. I think you are misleading and your views are potentially damaging. How dare you insinuate this?! You have sensationalised this topic to the point of idiocy and use vague studies to make others feel like sub par parents. I hope this poster disregards this cruel suggestion.

 

[elizah1980]

I have severe anxiety and depression and was never left to CIO as a child.

So I guess sleep training would not even be acceptable in your eyes in my situation. My daughter was born by EMCS after 32 hours of labor and some severe distress (or are you one of those moms who says a section isn't a birth?) The last good night of sleep I had was the day before my water broke.

My daughter had never slept through in her life. When she was 4 months old I had a nervous breakdown. My doctor says it was most likely PPD/extreme sleep deprivation. I almost committed suicide. So would a dead mom be better than a few nights of CIO? I never had to do full CIO but I did need to get some sleep in order to get myself back together. How dare you paint everyone with such a broad brush.

 

[fieryphoenix]

I was never left to cry and have a myriad of attachment, anxiety and OCD issues. How do you prove it was CIO that causes these kinds of problems in adulthood? You can't. I'm a good example. Mentally, I'm a mess, but it wasn't caused by CIO, because it was never done to me. I don't buy it. Sorry.

No one ever said that cio is the only thing that could cause these things, though. You probably weren't severely physically abused as a child, either, but we know that physical abuse can also cause your symptoms. Just because you have the symptoms without one of the possible causes doesn't debunk it as a possible cause.
Frankly, if I had anxiety issues, I'd be much less inclined to cio in case there's a genetic link and my baby were having uncontrollable anxiety problems causing the wakefulness at nighttime.

Not much gets me really cross but this post is disgraceful. I think you are misleading and your views are potentially damaging. How dare you insinuate this?! You have sensationalised this topic to the point of idiocy and use vague studies to make others feel like sub par parents. I hope this poster disregards this cruel suggestion.

you mean the poster that doesn't want to leave her infant to CIO? What are you even talking about? How is it cruel to not CIO?