Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I had a pre-natal teacher say she left her baby to cry 45 minutes, but the next night was only 15. There is evidence to support that brain development is harmed by leaving a baby to cry. To hear a baby fuss for a minute is far different than these "cry it out" methods.
I stand by my first post in this thread, which is that the people throwing the greatest judgements around for ANY method seem to be the ones who have not taken time to know what the method entails. No one on this thread who has used CIO recommends leaving a child unattended to for 45 consecutive minutes. Are there people who do? Probably, but they are not doing it properly, then. As pointed out by numerous other posters, the studies cited re: harmfulness of crying to brain development is not at a 5 or 15 minute mark. If you don't want to use it don't, but you'll have to do better than an anecdotal "my teacher told me" to justify the condemnation you are showing for a method it seems you know very little about.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 09-14-2012 at 10:44 AM..
The ENTIRE POINT of this post is that they did studies and found no issue with "Cry it Out". We aren't talking about huge stretches at a time (i.e. the best is a 15 minute cry, then 30 minute the next night, and guesses are you won't need 45 min the third night). The evidence suggests that the benefits (better sleep, less depression for adults, etc) out weigh most concerns.
30 minutes one night folowed by 45 the next? Really? That doesn't sound at all what I thought we were talking about here. I thought we were talking about starting off with one minute, followed by two and up to 15 minutes, absolute max. I guess having a definition of what CIO is would be helpful. I have never used CIO but have defended it here based on what I thought it meant. I do think 30 minutes is extreme and 45? Way too long. I also can't imagine increasing the interval by 15 minutes overnight. That seems like a long stretch and in no way, gradual to an infant.
Quote:
These THEORIST are actual scientist doing actual quantitative studies. You want us all to ignore the world and agree with you on faith. Some of us want facts, not faith, for our decisions. I find it that those who raise their kids based on FAITH not evidence are the real problems here. . .
If you don't want to be judged for parenting based on research then maybe you should not be so quick to judge those who choose to parent based on instincts. By the way. The study did not say that CIO was the superior method. It said that it was not harmful when done in the recommended way. Big difference. Co-sleeping is also backed up by FACTS as a not being harmful when done in the recommended way.
30 minutes one night folowed by 45 the next? Really? That doesn't sound at all what I thought we were talking about here. I thought we were talking about starting off with one minute, followed by two and up to 15 minutes, absolute max. I guess having a definition of what CIO is would be helpful. I have never used CIO but have defended it here based on what I thought it meant. I do think 30 minutes is extreme and 45? Way too long. I also can't imagine increasing the interval by 15 minutes overnight. That seems like a long stretch and in no way, gradual to an infant.
If you don't want to be judged for parenting based on research then maybe you should not be so quick to judge those who choose to parent based on instincts. By the way. The study did not say that CIO was the superior method. It said that it was not harmful when done in the recommended way. Big difference. Co-sleeping is also backed up by FACTS as a not being harmful when done in the recommended way.
I believe you are correct, Dorthy. Even Ferber doesn't recommend those intervals. One example: Ferber Method | Letting Babies Cry it Out. Another thing to keep in mind is that there are many more graduated approaches to CIO, even Ferber offered several revised graduated options to the original CIO, where the interval is increased after a few days instead of from night to night, or in 5 or 10 minute intervals rather than 15. The starting interval should be determined by how many times and how quickly the parents have responded in the past, so the baby can gradually adjust.
No matter how the graduated approach is implemented, it is not intended to be an ad nauseum method where the child is protest crying for days and weeks on end. The longest time frame I have ever heard of is using an extremely graduated approach over two weeks.
I completely agree with you that when implemented in the recommended way, neither CIO or co-sleeping are harmful, and indeed both can have benefits. I have never seen a scientific study claiming that one method was superior.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 09-14-2012 at 01:15 PM..
30 minutes one night folowed by 45 the next? Really? That doesn't sound at all what I thought we were talking about here. I thought we were talking about starting off with one minute, followed by two and up to 15 minutes, absolute max. I guess having a definition of what CIO is would be helpful. I have never used CIO but have defended it here based on what I thought it meant. I do think 30 minutes is extreme and 45? Way too long. I also can't imagine increasing the interval by 15 minutes overnight. That seems like a long stretch and in no way, gradual to an infant.
If you don't want to be judged for parenting based on research then maybe you should not be so quick to judge those who choose to parent based on instincts. By the way. The study did not say that CIO was the superior method. It said that it was not harmful when done in the recommended way. Big difference.
The point here isn't that I am arguing for the cry-it-out method, more so than I am arguing against a person who calls everyone monsters for using it. WE wait until we got our DOCTORS permission, and he was older (6 months).
I'm thinking cry-it-out might mean something different to different people. Ferber is very clear "Simply leaving a child in a crib to cry for long periods alone until he falls sleep, no matter how long it takes, is not an approach I approve of. On the contrary, many of the approaches I recommend are designed specifically to avoid unnecessary crying.""
The idea is to start with a good consistent bedroom routine then start lengthing the time involved. You need time to leave the room, so maybe start with at least a couple minutes.
I think we did 15 minutes, then the next night 30 minutes. . .didn't need a 3rd night. Yet the idea is you pick the time you are comfortable with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy
Co-sleeping is also backed up by FACTS as a not being harmful when done in the recommended way.
What Facts are you smoking? The same facts that show we didn't land on the moon? The site First Candle which is dedicated to SIDS. Of co-sleeping (i.e. same bed NOT same room) they say this
The idea is to start with a good consistent bedroom routine then start lengthing the time involved. You need time to leave the room, so maybe start with at least a couple minutes.
I think we did 15 minutes, then the next night 30 minutes. . .didn't need a 3rd night. Yet the idea is you pick the time you are comfortable with.
So you jumped from 15 minutes one night straight to 30 the next. Got it. The idea is not to pick the time you are comfortable with. It is meant to be gradual intervals. That is so not the type of "CIO" that the study was talking about. It's also only recommended for babies older then 6 months so I hope that's what you are talking about here.
Cry it out may be debate, co-sleeping is deadly (not the same as same room sleeping).
Again, could do without the rudeness and judgement. Thank you. You might want to actually do a little more research before jumping to conclusions and believing the first thing you hear or read. Here is just a little to get you started.
Almost all SIDS deaths associated with parental bedsharing occurred in conjunction with a history of parental drug use and occurred in association with the prone sleep position or sleep surfaces such as a couch or waterbed.’ Gessner et al.1
Co-sleeping can be dangerous in some situations and if proper precautions are not followed just like the use of Cry it Out can be dangerous if proper precautions are not followed.
Much of the elevated risk 9from co-sleeping) appeared to be attributable to drug and alcohol use among the parents. In multivariable analyses, there were significant interactions between bed-sharing and substance use compared with both random controls (P=0.002) and high-risk controls (P=0.02). "The major influences on risk ... are amenable to change and specific advice needs to be given, particularly on use of alcohol or drugs before co-sleeping and co-sleeping on a sofa," the researchers said.
So again, co-sleeping CAN be dangerous if the parent does not follow proper precautions but to say it is "deadly" is a gross over exaggeration.
Quote:
In addition to co-sleeping, there were several factors associated with an increased risk for SIDS:
Child sleeping alone in a room: OR 21.34, 95% CI 2.99 to 152.56
Using a pillow: OR 10.59, 95% CI 1.43 to 78.39
Swaddling: OR 31.06, 95% CI 4.21 to 228.94
Maternal smoking during pregnancy: OR 13.36, 95% CI 3.07 to 58.83
Preterm birth: OR 11.52, 95% CI 1.64 to 80.82
Parental report of child being in fair or poor health for the last sleep: OR 8.06, 95% CI 1.11 to 58.42
Sleeping on stomach: OR 6.61, 95% CI 1.57 to 27.88
Would it be correct for me to say that "children sleeping alone in a room" are just one step away from deaths door? Of course not. That would be another example of a gross over exaggeration.
Worldwide research shows that the SIDS rate is lowest (and even unheard of) in countries where co-sleeping is the norm, rather than the exception 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Babies who sleep either in or next to their parents’ bed have a fourfold decrease in the chance of SIDS 10. Co-sleeping babies actually spend more time sleeping on their back or side 1 which decreases the risk of SIDS. Further research shows that the carbon dioxide exhaled by a parent actually works to stimulate baby’s breathing 11.
In my experience, threads about crying it out are 90% splitting hairs over exactly what "cry it out" really means and 10% realizing that what most parents do in real life is not that different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought we were talking about starting off with one minute, followed by two and up to 15 minutes, absolute max. I guess having a definition of what CIO is would be helpful. I have never used CIO but have defended it here based on what I thought it meant. I do think 30 minutes is extreme and 45? Way too long. I also can't imagine increasing the interval by 15 minutes overnight. That seems like a long stretch and in no way, gradual to an infant. 
