How to wean your baby from a mothers point of view

In article , Sarah Vaughan says...

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

(a long and eminently sensible post, mostly snipped but with this point
that I wanted to respond to)
I might not always follow the recommendations, but I would
ask very pointedly what the benefit is in *not* following the
recommendations. Unless there's a good reason arguing *for*
the need to give a particular child solids early, I don't see
the point in taking the risk, no matter how small it might be,
simply because you never get to know in advance if you're at
a tipping point where a little quantitative difference might
make a large qualitative difference for a specific individual.

Totally agree with this (and, incidentally, even if there was *no*
difference between four months and six months from a health point of
view I'd still think six months was better for practical reasons -
giving finger foods to a baby who can sit up has got to be easier than
faffing around with those silly purées!) What I object to is not the
basic recommendation that six months appears to be better than four, but
the amount of emphasis placed on it, which seems out of proportion to
the actual level of evidence. The message that comes across isn't "It
looks as though there are some overall advantages in doing things this
way and it will be beneficial to the health of some babies, so better to
wait if you can," but an unqualified "You should do things this way. It
will be harmful to your baby if you don't."

When I realised I wouldn't be able to keep Jamie exclusively breastfed
for six months, I felt terrible - what awful harm was I doing to my baby
by not being able to pump enough milk at work? Fortunately, I have
access to the information on which the guidelines are based and the
know-how to interpret it correctly, so I read up on the actual evidence
and was left feeling much better (apart from feeling angry that I'd been
sent on that guilt trip on such very limited actual evidence). But lots
of women in this situation don't have that. How many women are left
feeling guilty either because they can't live up to the standard that's
been set or because they brought up a baby under the old guidelines and
then had the rules switched on them and are now being left with the
message that the way they did things was all wrong? This is why it
makes me twitchy when I see people putting what seems to be to be a
disproportionate amount of weight on the existing evidence. Just
because there's evidence of benefit doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep
our perspective over it.

I agree with this. Add to that the hoo haa that the first sip of wine while
pregnant would endanger my child, that any decent parent would never use a
microwave to heat a bottle, and babies should have at least yea much time on
their bellies every day, even if they *hate it* like mine did.

I know medical and safety information is simplified and overstated to have
impact on a wide public. Maybe it has to be. But for myself, I read the
rationales and reasons for these recommendations, and made decisions of my own.
I like to think these recommendations *did* have their effect on my having
educated myself, even if I didn't exactly follow them.

Banty

On Dec 20, 8:28 am, Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Vaughan says...







Ericka Kammerer wrote:

(a long and eminently sensible post, mostly snipped but with this point
that I wanted to respond to)
I might not always follow the recommendations, but I would
ask very pointedly what the benefit is in *not* following the
recommendations. Unless there's a good reason arguing *for*
the need to give a particular child solids early, I don't see
the point in taking the risk, no matter how small it might be,
simply because you never get to know in advance if you're at
a tipping point where a little quantitative difference might
make a large qualitative difference for a specific individual.

Totally agree with this (and, incidentally, even if there was *no*
difference between four months and six months from a health point of
view I'd still think six months was better for practical reasons -
giving finger foods to a baby who can sit up has got to be easier than
faffing around with those silly purées!) What I object to is not the
basic recommendation that six months appears to be better than four, but
the amount of emphasis placed on it, which seems out of proportion to
the actual level of evidence. The message that comes across isn't "It
looks as though there are some overall advantages in doing things this
way and it will be beneficial to the health of some babies, so better to
wait if you can," but an unqualified "You should do things this way. It
will be harmful to your baby if you don't."

When I realised I wouldn't be able to keep Jamie exclusively breastfed
for six months, I felt terrible - what awful harm was I doing to my baby
by not being able to pump enough milk at work? Fortunately, I have
access to the information on which the guidelines are based and the
know-how to interpret it correctly, so I read up on the actual evidence
and was left feeling much better (apart from feeling angry that I'd been
sent on that guilt trip on such very limited actual evidence). But lots
of women in this situation don't have that. How many women are left
feeling guilty either because they can't live up to the standard that's
been set or because they brought up a baby under the old guidelines and
then had the rules switched on them and are now being left with the
message that the way they did things was all wrong? This is why it
makes me twitchy when I see people putting what seems to be to be a
disproportionate amount of weight on the existing evidence. Just
because there's evidence of benefit doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep
our perspective over it.

I agree with this. Add to that the hoo haa that the first sip of wine while
pregnant would endanger my child, that any decent parent would never use a
microwave to heat a bottle, and babies should have at least yea much time on
their bellies every day, even if they *hate it* like mine did.

I know medical and safety information is simplified and overstated to have
impact on a wide public. Maybe it has to be. But for myself, I read the
rationales and reasons for these recommendations, and made decisions of my own.
I like to think these recommendations *did* have their effect on my having
educated myself, even if I didn't exactly follow them.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Like some one else said earlier... Mothers and some fathers with kids
are better at being the Doctor than the actual Doctor... Because It's
normally the mother spending most the time with the baby (who ever is
with the baby most normally know when something is wrong with him or
her.) I think I'm saying that right. I know I always went with my
insticts.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:26:31 +0000, Sarah Vaughan
wrote:
I'm curious about this. If you do grab the window of opportunity and
get a child trained before they hit the oppositional phase (if that's
the right term), what happens when they do hit it? Isn't there a risk
that, when they do hit a more oppositional stage, they'll start having
episodes of wetting themselves anyway as part of a rebellious stage?
Has anyone had this experience?

I have never had that experience, none of my children ever wet on
purpose. Once they were potty-trained(it took about 2-3 days) that was
it. What does happen at that phase is everything else goes to hell and
you fear the grocery store. j/k, I don't think my kids even hit some
oppositional phase! They just became more independent as time went on,
and right around age 4 all of them seemed to develop these minds of
their own. Mine were out of day-diapers at 27, 24 and 22 months, in
that order. There were no accidents afterwards, it was all very easy
for me. There was no forcing or anything that I've heard other moms
talk about before. It seemed easier and quicker with each child to
switch them to undies. I just put it down to experience, but looking
back, my youngest has done many things much earlier than my first two
so maybe she's just quicker with things.
Marie

On Dec 20, 8:28 am, Banty wrote:

snip

Add to that the hoo haa that the first sip of wine while
pregnant would endanger my child

Is it "hoo haa" just because it interfered with your lifestyle?

I'm not a doctor and have not seriously studied this issue, but my
wife is a doctor and did not touch a drop of alcohol during her
pregnancies. Googling "alcohol pregnant mothers" gives the following
story, near the top:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/13332.php
There is no safe amount of alcohol for pregnant women
Article Date: 13 Sep 2004 - 14:00 PDT
According to Dr Raja Mukherjee, of St George's Medical School, UK,
there is no safe amount of alcohol for pregnant women. He says that
even a small amount can harm the unborn child in some cases. The UK
government currently advises pregnant women to restrict their drinking
to small amounts - two units per week, one unit is about one small
glass of wine.

Dr Raja Mukherjee spoke at the Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Aware UK
Syndrome Conference, London, UK.

According to Dr Mukherjee, the number of babies who suffer from fetal
alcohol syndrome is much higher than the current two per thousand - he
reckons the number is more likely to be around one per hundred. He
says that many babies are misdiagnosed.

The UK government advises pregnant women to limit their alcohol intake
to one or two units per week (about two small glasses of wine per
week).

According to studies, says Dr. Mukherjee, any amount, however small,
is risky for the unborn baby.

This does not mean that every pregnant mother who has a couple of
drinks will have a damaged child. It means that a doctor cannot advise
the pregnant mother to have just one or two drinks if she wants to be
sure she is protecting her baby.

rest of article at link

Banty wrote in
:

I agree with this. Add to that the hoo haa that the first
sip of wine while pregnant would endanger my child, that
any decent parent would never use a microwave to heat a
bottle, and babies should have at least yea much time on
their bellies every day, even if they *hate it* like mine
did.

what *is* the rationale for the N minutes of tummy time, even
if they *hate it*? Boo also hated it, but he spent most of his
time sitting on my lap or suspended next to me in his bouncer
swing until he was 4 months old & started crusing & then
walking at 5 months... he didn't learn to crawl until 3 or 4
years, & he had minor crossing the midline issues, but i doubt
'tummy time' would have made a difference.
he was holding his head up at birth, so his neck muscles
didn't need strengthening. so, why the tummy time?
lee

In article , enigma says...

Banty wrote in
:

I agree with this. Add to that the hoo haa that the first
sip of wine while pregnant would endanger my child, that
any decent parent would never use a microwave to heat a
bottle, and babies should have at least yea much time on
their bellies every day, even if they *hate it* like mine
did.

what *is* the rationale for the N minutes of tummy time, even
if they *hate it*? Boo also hated it, but he spent most of his
time sitting on my lap or suspended next to me in his bouncer
swing until he was 4 months old & started crusing & then
walking at 5 months... he didn't learn to crawl until 3 or 4
years, & he had minor crossing the midline issues, but i doubt
'tummy time' would have made a difference.
he was holding his head up at birth, so his neck muscles
didn't need strengthening. so, why the tummy time?
lee

It was to help them strenthen their bodies to make certain milestones, like
propping themselves up on their arms and looking up, and rolling over. But,
like you say, it's not like every infant goes through the same pathway. Also,
with babies on their backs for SIDS concerns, a lot of infants just aren't going
to be on the same milestones for the same things that were set in the years when
parents put babies on their stomachs to sleep.

Banty

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Dec 20, 8:28 am, Banty wrote:

snip

Add to that the hoo haa that the first sip of wine while
pregnant would endanger my child

Is it "hoo haa" just because it interfered with your lifestyle?

I'm not a doctor and have not seriously studied this issue, but my
wife is a doctor and did not touch a drop of alcohol during her
pregnancies. Googling "alcohol pregnant mothers" gives the following
story, near the top:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/13332.php
There is no safe amount of alcohol for pregnant women
Article Date: 13 Sep 2004 - 14:00 PDT
According to Dr Raja Mukherjee, of St George's Medical School, UK,
there is no safe amount of alcohol for pregnant women. He says that
even a small amount can harm the unborn child in some cases. The UK
government currently advises pregnant women to restrict their drinking
to small amounts - two units per week, one unit is about one small
glass of wine.

Dr Raja Mukherjee spoke at the Foetal Alcohol Syndrome Aware UK
Syndrome Conference, London, UK.

According to Dr Mukherjee, the number of babies who suffer from fetal
alcohol syndrome is much higher than the current two per thousand - he
reckons the number is more likely to be around one per hundred. He
says that many babies are misdiagnosed.

The UK government advises pregnant women to limit their alcohol intake
to one or two units per week (about two small glasses of wine per
week).

According to studies, says Dr. Mukherjee, any amount, however small,
is risky for the unborn baby.

This does not mean that every pregnant mother who has a couple of
drinks will have a damaged child. It means that a doctor cannot advise
the pregnant mother to have just one or two drinks if she wants to be
sure she is protecting her baby.

rest of article at link

As it turns out, there' no safe amount of ionizing radiation either for human
tissue.

But we're not living in underground bunkers or even refusing long flights to
avoid cosmic radiation.

There would be nations of imbeciles if there was any kind of important effect.
From what I've seen, the effects of *small* amounts are weak, and often found in
studies with self-reported amounts.

So my judgement on the issue is different from your wife's, sorry.

Banty

On Dec 20, 1:26 am, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Banty wrote:
It reminds me of that "window of opportunity" idea regarding toilet training.
That if you teach kids at about the age of 24 months, just before they get
oppositional and are really motivated to please parents, and stay on top of
their needs a lot, you can toilet train them. Waiting until they had it all
together at about 3 1/2 to toilet train themselves being seen as a failure,
having missed the window.

I'm curious about this. If you do grab the window of opportunity and
get a child trained before they hit the oppositional phase (if that's
the right term), what happens when they do hit it? Isn't there a risk
that, when they do hit a more oppositional stage, they'll start having
episodes of wetting themselves anyway as part of a rebellious stage?
Has anyone had this experience?


Yes, my first trained a few months before she turned 2. For the
first 3 months she had 1 poop accident per month. After that she went
through an unpleasant phase of intentionally pooping in the wrong
places. We got through this and things were going great.

She had been over the bad stage for months when her little brother
was born. At this point, we had more than regression; she was
intentionally going in the worst places she could think of. I ended
up putting her in a diaper and onesie sewed partway closed at the top
and closed with a diaper pin at the bottom. When she asked to go or
needed a change, I locked her in the bathroom with me before taking it
off so she wouldn't run out and go on the couch or pillows from the
bed etc. This stage went on for a couple months and ended before she
turned 3.

After this experience, I waited until my second was 3 1/2 to train,
even though I did some EC when he was little, catching most of his
poop around the time he was 7 months old. I also skipped a window of
opportunity at 17-18 months when he started getting on the little
potty on his own and going. There were disadvantages to this as he
wasn't able to start preschool until he turned 4. Even then he had
the occasional accident at preschool. He also had many diaper rashes,
despite my changing him as quickly as I could after he pooped.

I used EC with my third. The older kids helped. Long before she
could get her pants down herself, she would start to try when she
needed to go. One of the kids or I would grab her potty and help her
onto it. By 17 months, she was pretty independent about getting
herself to the potty, pulling down her pants and going. For the next
6 months, she was so dependable that I was able to take her out and
about without even having to think about bringing spare clothes.

Just before she turned two, she reached an oppositional stage and
began ignoring the need to pee until she had an accident. She kept
her poop training though. She is now 3 and this is still a problem.
She started preschool at 2 3/4 and absolutely loves it. She is
perfectly potty trained there, since she knows that they don't allow
children who aren't potty trained. She is still trying to hold it
forever at home and frequently has accidents. She has had 2 bladder
infections that I think are due to her holding it in for 5+ hours
rather than going when she feels the need.

We are expecting another in less than 2 months. I plan to use EC
with this one too and hope we don't go through the oppositional
stage. Since my kids have all had very sensitive skin, avoiding
diaper rashes through EC makes a significant improvement in their
quality of life.

--Betsy

Banty wrote in
:

In article

ps.com, Beliavsky says...

On Dec 20, 8:28 am, Banty wrote:

snip

Add to that the hoo haa that the first sip of wine while
pregnant would endanger my child

Is it "hoo haa" just because it interfered with your
lifestyle?

There would be nations of imbeciles if there was any kind
of important effect. From what I've seen, the effects of
*small* amounts are weak, and often found in studies with
self-reported amounts.

not to mention that it's only been very recent where there was
safe, potable water widely available. before then, most people
drank beer & wine as a matter of course, because alcohol
killed the bad bugs. there was not a lot of Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome in our grandparent's time (that being, in my case,
the late 1800s/early 1900s, or earlier).
guzzling large quantities of Everclear is stupid. an
occaisional glass of wine is not.
lee

On 20 Dec 2007 07:42:09 -0800, Banty wrote:
It was to help them strenthen their bodies to make certain milestones, like
propping themselves up on their arms and looking up, and rolling over. But,
like you say, it's not like every infant goes through the same pathway. Also,
with babies on their backs for SIDS concerns, a lot of infants just aren't going
to be on the same milestones for the same things that were set in the years when
parents put babies on their stomachs to sleep.

I thought it was to prevent the flat spots on babies' heads. They were
laying on their backs so much their heads are being misshapen.
marie