Postcards from a Theorist...
I find it quite interesting that us as a species have survived for millions of years, yet according to todays "specialists" everything we have done up to about 20 years ago is wrong. For example, us as babies used to be considered 'gifts from the gods' if we were able to sleep through the night, and parents wouldn't dare wake us if we were doing so... yet, NOW, they say 'No! - wake the heathens, they must not go more than 2 hours without feeding". They claim that babies blood sugar drops too low, and the baby is 'unable' to wake itself... Ok, I can see some validity to that... but does anyone know of any babies who slept themselves to starvation?
This is where the theory kicks in... Sleep is important for the development of the brain, right? Well, I know that Kim and I have not functioned properly the last two weeks going on 2 hour spurts of sleep. So, how can a brain, that is so fresh and undeveloped expect to develop properly if it can not get more than 2 hours of sleep at any one time? Is there a correlation to the increase in A.D.D? I'm sure video games can't be entirely to blame!
Am I just under the influence of 2 hour spurts of sleep? I know your reading this... so give me your thoughts...any parents out there?
posted by London Postmaster @ 12:03 a.m.
5 comments
5 Comments:
Correlation to childhood obesity???
- Kim (the one feeding every two hours)
As Dave ad I try to decide if we want any kids. I keep thinking about what the two of you are going through with breastfeeding. (evry two hours). Well I will not do it. Al the power to the both of you well to Kim since she is doing the breastfeeding. I need my sleep and if I can get the kid to sleep 4 hours on a bottle well guess what? I will do that. My friend is breadtfeeding and she if not doing the 2 hour thing. She is doing the old way and so far so good. Do doctors really know what they are talking about? Any way it's late, had a bad closing shift, lost money lots of it but found it and now have to sleep before getting up and starting my hole day again at McDonalds.
Well Steve, When I was an infant (2 weeks late) my mom says that I slept for 8 hours within the first few weeks... don't know whether that means there's something wrong with me or not, but i know that my mom wasn't concerned at the time ;)
Have you thought about asking another doctor's opinion on the 2 hour feeding thing? I know other new mothers who did not have to follow the same rule...
see you soon!
Mel
You know what, Steve? They change the rules about every 10 years. When my little brother was born in the 60s, (and I was old enough to look after him) the rule was NOT to feed before 4 hours were up, even if they were screaming with hunger. The idea was to "train" baby into fitting into Mommy's schedule. In those days, you could "spoil" a baby by picking him up when he cried. (Yeah right. Luckily my mother didn't buy into that nonsense & taught me differently.)
Then, just over a decade later, when I had my first baby, the rules had begun to change. Some modern-thinking mothers were following the latest theory: "Feeding on Demand". Nonetheless, before I left the hospital, I was handed a paper with the old "10-2-6" 4-hour feeding schedule for Andrea. The doc told me it was ok to feed her after 3 hours if she really seemed hungry, but to try to encourage her to wait the 4 hours if possible.
Breast-feeding was making a comeback, after a generation or two of bottle-fed babies. "Natural" was the new buzz word in those days, meaning countless young mothers suffered "Natural" childbirths - no painkillers, no epidurals - just because it was the "in" thing. Apparently, real women could learn to overcome pain by breathing the right way. Only wimps had anaesthesia. (Yeah right.) ;)
Then, nearly a decade later, I had my last baby. By the 80's, it was anything goes. Feed baby when he's hungry. Don't leave him crying. Swaddle him, cuddle him, keep him clean, warm & dry, nurse him whenever he needs comfort, and let him sleep when he feels tired.
It was a difficult thing for the grandmothers to watch, after they had been taught not to "spoil" baby like that. It caused a lot of disagreement between generations of mothers, I can tell you.
Then, 16 years later, Abby came along. By then, I couldn't care less what the newest thinking was. I'd looked after enough babies in my time to know that the best thing to do is was use common sense - do what comes naturally. There is no one right way - all babies are different.
Nature has hard-wired young parents to feel distress when baby cries for a reason. It's nature's way of making sure baby is cared for.
It was only a few years later, when Andrea had her first baby, that I noticed the trends had begun to change again, and perhaps the "natural" concept had gone a little too far, with some mothers denying any solid food to their older babies, in the belief that nothing could nourish them like breast milk. Tots were becoming anaemic because there's no iron in milk.
I guarantee that, in 10 years time, there will be lots more trendy new ideas based on the latest research done on a bunch of inbred mice (No offense Kim ;)). Guaranteed that according to the experts, all the stuff you're doing now, Steve, will be considered wrong by Gordie's wife's doctor in the year 2030.
It seems to me that things are gradually going full-circle. I wouldn't be surprised to see the stringent scheduling come back by the time you're a grandfather, Steve. I sure hope not though. Babies deserve to be catered to. They need to feel secure & comfortable.
Why on earth would anyone wake a sleeping baby for any reason? (Well unless the house is on fire.)
If he's sleeping, that's what Nature is telling him to do. He'll let you know when he's hungry. No baby ever starved himself to death on purpose. And they're known not to suffer hunger quietly. ;)
Steve, you're so right in pointing out that so many of us humans from earlier generations have managed to survive, despite the old-fashioned ways.
I was lucky when I was a new mother, because I had a non-conformist mother who totally ignored trendy thinking. When I had Andrea, I listened to her, & did what made most sense to me. And that's how I've been with babies ever since, & the method I passed on to my daughters.
As a granny who has been actively involved in caring for 3 generations of babies, I can tell you this: Don't sweat it!
Do what comes naturally. You & Kim know Gordie better than any outsider, and you have to go with your gut feeling.
I believe a lot of stress felt by new parents is caused by their efforts to live up to what some so-called experts tell them, even though every expert has a different theory anyway. Some young parents even stress out trying to live up to their friends' ideas.
You can't please everybody, so don't bother trying to please anybody but yourselves.
Close your ears to unsolicited advice, especially if it doesn't sound right to you (and even if it's from me LOL!! :). If you're uncomfortable with what the doctor says, do like Mel up there above me posted: get another opinion.
Perhaps Gordie has some special requirement if he has a blood sugar problem. But I always thought that low blood sugar causes hunger & distress. I know how Burnie gets when his blood sugar drops too low - and that's far from relaxed! ;)
Get your rest, both of you. You're going to do a much better job of caring for Gordie when you're not dog-tired. If Gordie wants to sleep, then take his cue & do the same thing. He'll wake you up when he needs you. Nature has designed him that way.
Whoops... I got a bit carried away there. ;)
Granny :)
Now that's what I'm talking about - some serious comment action!
Thanks Chris. You make such valid points. I too think that too much effort is put into what the latest 'trend'/study is. The only study I ever believed was the one that proved studies are useless.
I like to think that Kim and I are on the right track, and it is reassuring with all the support we are getting from family like yourself.
Thanks again!
Post a Comment
<< Home