- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Babies: 9 - 12 Months
AnnaRedhead
member
Baby Wise
AnnaRedhead
member
Anyone read and followed this book? My friend has a three month old and says she loves it. I'm thinking about getting it and just wanted some opinions on it:)
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Baby Wise
I used Babywise with the girls and loved it. It has really great principals for scheduling and sleeping, and some great insight on adding children to your marriage. Several women on the Multiples board have used it as well and really enjoyed it.
It's an important book to read before the baby arrives though. A lot of the concepts you start following from Day 1. Like any book, you have to be flexible for your baby and your own lifestyle.
I'm really not a fan.
I read the book (not cover to cover, but ~80% of it) to better understand what the book said, and not the hyperbole behind it. But it does boil down to putting your own preferences ahead of your newborns needs.
Feeding every three hours? More convenient for mom, but a breastfed baby takes two hours to digest his/her meal, and then his/her rather tiny stomach is empty - not something you want for someone recovering from a strenuous ordeal (birth) or trying to rapidly grow and has been accustomed to continuous feeding while in utero. That said, Baby Wise doesn't actually recommend strict scheduling, but it can encourage something awfully similar to it in practice.
Sleep scheduling and sleeping through the night? Ugh, the book is rife with all kinds of glossing over the reality of the situation. "Who wouldn't want a baby to sleep through the night?" it asks on the chapter on sleep. Well - probably a newborn who has a tiny stomach and needs food to keep his/her blood sugar up over 10-12 hours of night. And probably the three month old who has entirely different sleep patterns from adults (it takes a long time for them to shift closer toward adult sleep patterns) and will find that the lightest stages of sleeping DO wake them up. (And, from a biologic perspective, it's probably a good thing. Can you imagine how well babies would have survived over the evolution of humans if they could just be put down and left alone for 12 hours? Temperature, predators, and so on would have killed more of them if they hadn't waken and kept an adult nearby.
The talk about sleep props being a hinderance is LOADED with assumptions about parenting goals and analogies to adult brains. I'm not saying it's totally bogus, but the expectations that you can avoid using them for even most babies is silly. Especially when you talk about letting the baby bond with a lovey, but not a parent (who rocks/nurses the baby to sleep).
Their section on co-sleeping is just dead wrong and contradicts research on the subject. (And, I might argue, may be detrimental as some study suggests that SAFE cosleeping can be of benefit to newborns by helping them learn to regulate their breathing.)
And the advice "When naptime comes, the baby goes down. It is that simple." (p 130, 2006 ed.) is LAUGHABLE for some babies. It's utterly ridiculous in our house. How on earth do they expect you to MAKE the baby go to sleep?
Their take on AP (attachment parenting) is hyperbole at best (and, technically, they even state it (p. 33 - "For the purpose of this book and because of its extreme nature, Allicin's definition of attachemnt parenting will be used...")!). It paints APers as mindless robots "Unfortunately, Marisa's mom will not take the time to assess. In fact, she has been told it is best not to think. She simply reacts to her feelings when she hears her baby cry. Yet feelings never were and never will be the basis for any sound decision-making" (p 150).
And, I think, what those quotes and the general tone of the book really defines is that it completely ignores mothering instinct. Implying that there must be a delayed, methodical thought process before responding to a baby (or that instinctive response implies no thought) gives absolutely NO credit for the mental processing ability of adults.
Do some babies do better on a strict schedule (at least for naps/sleep/order of day)? Yes. Do some babies do better with a more free form day? Yes. The same is true of all people. Will it vary over time? Yes. It's only for a parent's convenience that we try to force a baby's life into our own schedule. There is a lot of room for compromise, even while still maintaining the ability to think.
Wow thank you so much for taking the time to respond!! Your response, and others before, have given me a lot to think about. My friend that was raving about this book helped me finish my registery today and she was just going on and on about it and so I just wanted to dig a little deeper on my part to see what was really up with this book. I've heard here and there that it is very controversial and I just wasn't ever sure why. I definitely do want to try to get our LO on some sort of schedule but I want to do what's best for him, not what's best for me. I think basically you were trying to say that this book seems to put your needs above your LOs a lot am I correct? That's certainly not what I am wanting to do!!
Do you have a suggestion maybe for a good parenting book I could read? I've baby sat a lot in the past but that's of course nothing like raising your own child and I just feel like I really want to read some sort of parenting book before he's born! Any suggestion would be amazing...:)
Eh, I don't want to say that is puts the parents needs above the baby's... but that is kinda my take on it. Of course, my own personal parenting philosophy is much closer to AP, so I have a bias here. I definitely felt that the book exaggerated the whole situation of caring for a newborn/young baby into "it's either meet your needs or the baby's, and don't let the baby manipulate you into just meeting his/her needs". (<-- that is *not* a quote from the book)
Everyone is right - there is a careful balance. But I don't think that you have to - as BabyWise suggests for sleep and nursing - that you have to set the balance at Day 1 to where you want it to be at Day 365. A one day old has different needs than a 10 month old, and so, imho, the balance needs to shift over time. A one-day old parent also has different needs than someone who's been a parent for 10 months, so that part of the equation also shifts.
Honestly, if you are interested in reading more about it and have the time, I would suggest getting BabyWise, but also something "opposite", like Dr. Sears' AP book, and maybe some others. Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child is a popular one (though it also proposes various forms of CIO, mostly). I happened to like The 90-Minute Sleep Solution for a better understanding of the nature of infant sleep, but didn't strictly follow any "instructions". Happiest Baby on the Block is a book that I didn't read but followed a lot of precepts of it as taught to me by my doula.
At the end of the day, I found that following my instincts has been the best way to go. For me, that actually involves a little "clock" scheduling for my daughter - but from the perspective of her cues coming "late". (She never had very clear signs between being content and crying after about two or three months old.) My instinct, based on her behavior and personality, is also to not CIO (don't get me wrong, I UNDERSTAND the desire like you wouldn't believe), because the signs I see from her strongly suggest it won't work. If I were seeing different signs, I might do things differently. When I finally stopped worrying about anything a book said and just parented instinctively, things became MUCH more comfortable and I became more confident. (Of course, that means listening to YOURSELF and being confident in yourself, and ignoring the "oh my gawd, don't you do X?!" crap from people with different babies and different personalities than you.
)
I wanted to add one more book suggestion:
Our Babies, Our Selves.
The reviews on Amazon - the negative ones - complain about it being nothing but one person's push to try to get everyone to AP. It can certainly be read that way. It can also be read that most other cultures do things more often that we happen to find AP and/or non-standard in our culture (like cosleeping). What I particularly liked about this book, even though it can seem heavy handed at times, is that it discusses parenting based on your parenting goals, rather than blind cultural influence.
For instance, one of the "big things" for our culture is to raise kids who are very "independent". But there are other cultures that don't consider this an important goal in raising a child - in Japan, being a good team member is more important. Even different European cultures have very different general goals. That, in turn, shapes their parenting choices.
This book really helped me come at my choices from my goals. I cosleep because I am not focused on raising an "independent" child (because I think that will come on its own as long as I don't stand in the way) as much as I care about raising a secure child who is able to form interdependent relationships. (<-- Note, that is NOT dependent. Healthy relationships are interdependent relationships.) That doesn't mean that I think someone who doesn't cosleep doesn't care about "secure child who is able to for interdependent relationships", but that I value that goal differently (and that's OK!).
It also helped me really UNDERSTAND (by thinking about what the book talked about, how it related to us, and how it related to other people) how seemingly "wrong" (to me) parenting choices may be the best choice possible for other people in other situations.
Charlotte Ella 07.16.10
Emmeline Grace 03.27.13
Here's a site that might be helpful for you re: Baby Wise.
https://www.parentwisesolutions.com/babywise/common-myths/
Happiest Baby on the Block is a great book. You can also Netflix the DVD or get it from the library even. Just so you know you can't compare HBOTB to BW - it's like apples to oranges. Baby Wise is a sleep train book.
I also read Healthy Sleep Habits, Healthy Twins - their original is Healthy Sleep Habits, Healthy Child - I just obviously needed the "twin version." That's also a great book and can help with sleep cues, etc. Again, it's a sleep training book. Lots of my friends found it helpful with their children.
I read the book, but in the end, I just did what felt right for me and DD. She was STTN by 3 months. I think you have to take everything you read with a grain of salt and go with your natural instincts.
DS: 10/11/14
AAP article copied below. Check the first website for alternatives as well as more info on the Babywise author,who is a cuckoo and self-styled, not peer-reviewed. He advocates smacking and squishing babies' hands to discipline them into behaving in their high chairs.
Also keep in mind he has no contact with his adult children, so he has clearly done a bang-up job of parenting! I think he may have been dropped by the publisher, too, but I can't remember for sure. In short, please stay away from this guy. Another vote for Happiest Baby, which gave me confidence.
https://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/babywise.html
https://www.ezzo.info/index.htm
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/july8/12.20.html
?Babywise? Linked to Babies' Dehydration, Failure to Thrive
THE OFFICIAL NEWSMAGAZINE OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 14 Number 4
by Matthew Aney, M.D.
Expectant parents often fear the changes a new baby will bring, especially sleepless nights. What new parent wouldn?t want a how-to book that promises their baby will be sleeping through the night by three to eight weeks?
One such book, On Becoming Babywise, has raised concern among pediatricians because it outlines an infant feeding program that has been associated with failure to thrive (FTT), poor weight gain, dehydration, breast milk supply failure, and involuntary early weaning. A Forsyth Medical Hospital Review Committee, in Winston-Salem N.C., has listed 11 areas in which the program is inadequately supported by conventional medical practice. The Child Abuse Prevention Council Of Orange County, Calif., stated its concern after physicians called them with reports of dehydration, slow growth and development, and FTT associated with the program. And on Feb. 8, AAP District IV passed a resolution asking the Academy to investigate ?Babywise,? determine the extent of its effects on infant health and alert its members, other organizations and parents of its findings.
I have reviewed numerous accounts of low weight gain and FTT associated with ?Babywise? and discussed them with several pediatricians and lactation consultants involved.
The book?s feeding schedule, called Parent Directed Feeding (PDF), consists of feeding newborns at intervals of three to three and one-half hours (described as two and one-half to three hours from the end of the last 30- minute feeding) beginning at birth. Nighttime feedings are eliminated at eight weeks.
This advice is in direct opposition to the latest AAP recommendations on newborn feeding (AAP Policy Statement, ?Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk,? Pediatrics, Dec. 1997): ?Newborns should be nursed whenever they show signs of hunger, such as increased alertness or activity, mouthing, or rooting. Crying is a late indicator of hunger. Newborns should be nursed approximately eight to 12 times every 24 hours until satiety...?
Although demand feeding is endorsed by the Academy, WHO, and La Leche League among others, ?Babywise? claims that demand feeding may he harmful and outlines a feeding schedule in contrast to it. The book makes numerous medical statements without references or research, despite that many are the antitheses of well-known medical research findings. In 190 pages, only two pediatric journals are referenced with citations dated 1982 and 1986.
Many parents are unaware of problems because the book is marketed as medically supported. It is co-authored by pediatrician Robert Bucknam, M.D., who not only states in the book that the ?Babywise? principles are medically sound,? but also writes, ?Babywise? has brought a needed reformation to pediatric counsel given to new parents.? Obstetrician Sharon Nelson, M.D., also warns: ?Not following the principles of ?Babywise? is a potential health concern.?
The book?s other author is Gary Ezzo, a pastor with no medical background. Ezzo?s company, Growing Families International (GFI), markets the book as ?ideally written? for ?obstetricians, pediatricians, or health-care providers to distribute to their patients.? (GFI promotes the same program under the title ?Preparation for Parenting,? a virtual duplicate with added religious material).
Though ?Babywise? does say, ?With PDF a mother feeds her baby when the baby is hungry,? it also instructs parents to do otherwise. In a question-and-answer section, parents of a 2-week-old baby, who did not get a full feeding at the last scheduled time and wants to eat again, are instructed that babies learn quickly from the laws of natural consequences. ?If your daughter doesn?t eat at one feeding, then make her wait until the next one.?
Unfortunately, the schedule in ?Babywise? does not take into account differences among breastfeeding women and babies. According to one report, differences of up to 300 percent in the maximum milk storage capacity of women?s breasts mean that, although women have the capability of producing the same amount of milk over a 24-hour period for their infants, some will have to breastfeed far more frequently than others to maintain that supply. Babies must feed when they need to, with intervals and duration determined according to a variety of factors in temperament, environment, and physiological makeup. Averages may fit into a bell-shaped curve, but some babies will require shorter intervals. (Daly S., Hartmann P. ?Infant demand and milk supply, Part 2. The short-term control of milk synthesis in lactating women.? Journal of Human Lactation; 11; (1):27-37).
Examples of the many other un- substantiated medical claims in ?Babywise? include:
? ?Lack of regularity [in feeding intervals] sends a negative signal to the baby?s body, creating metabolic confusion that negatively affects his or her hunger, digestive, and sleep/wake cycles.?
? ?Demand-fed babies don?t sleep through the night.?
? ?A mother who takes her baby to her breast 12, 15, or 20 times a day will not produce any more milk than the mom who takes her baby to breast six to seven times a day.?
? ?Mothers following PDF have little or no problem with the let down reflex, compared to those who demand-feed.?
? ?Colic, which basically is a spasm in the baby?s intestinal tract that causes pain, is very rare in PDF babies but is intensified in demand-fed babies.?
? ?In our opinion, much more developmental damage is done to a child by holding him or her constantly than by putting the baby down. In terms of biomechanics alone, carrying a baby in a sling can increase neck and back problems, or even create them.?
? ?Some researchers suggest that putting a baby on his or her back for sleep, rather than on the baby?s tummy, will reduce the chance of crib death. That research is not conclusive, and the method of gathering supportive data is questionable.?
My review of the low weight gain and FTT accounts associated with ?Babywise? revealed several disturbing trends. Parents were often adamant about continuing with the feeding schedule, even when advised otherwise by health care professionals. They were hesitant to tell their physicians about the schedule, making it difficult to pinpoint the cause for the weight gain problems. Many elected to supplement or wean to formula rather than continue breastfeeding at the expense of the schedule. The parents? commitment call be especially strong when they are using the program for religious reasons, even though numerous leaders within the same religious communities have publicly expressed concerns.
Pediatricians need to know about ?Babywise? and recognize its potential dangers. History taking should include questions to determine if parents are using a feeding schedule, especially before advising formula supplement to breastfeeding mothers or when faced with a low-gaining or possible failure to thrive baby. Lactation consultants also should be instructed to probe this area.
Efforts should be made to inform parents of the AAP recommended policies for breastfeeding and the potentially harmful consequences of not following them.
The thing is, a new parent doesn't necessarily know what's good instinct, which is one of the dangers of the book. Also picture a brand new, sleep-deprived mom of her first child, dealing with PPD or something-- it's a vulnerable time, making the book a potentially dangerous combination.
And it's not just the FtT issue-- there is a lot of batshitcrazy in that book, which I have indeed read.
I agree - never seen the above link but that represents what I got out of BabyWise when I read it - that it was sort of middle of the road - not AP but not pure scheduling, and so that made sense to me, to follow DS's cues as well as my own instincts. I also think it is best to read several books that differ in styles to see what strikes you as your preference or what will work for your LO. In the end, you may end up picking and choosing different things from different books/styles anyway. And we definitely have no issues with failure to thrive; I'm not an authority or anything but I'd be willing to suspect that comes more from those who follow a rigid schedule. Good luck in your research!