A few weeks ago at church, Michelle asked about opinions on scheduling. Unfortunately, the time between morning and afternoon service is minimal so we didn’t have time to have a thorough discussion. So I thought, maybe we could start the ‘discussion’ here and see what comes of it. This is MY point of view. I realize, it is different than many peoples, and I look forward to hearing the other points of view. So-without further ado…
I feel schedules are SO important for children and children really THRIVE on them. Kids like to know what is going to happen next, it makes them feel like they have some control on their lives to know what will happen next.
In the case of newborns... I like to get my babies on a schedule within a month or so of them being born. I don’t starve them until they get on a schedule but kind of go along with the schedule they follow. Of course, the first few weeks-a baby has such a mixed up schedule (yes-babies DO have schedules! They sleep during the day and are awake at night…and eat whenever they want…) Newborns shouldn’t be forced into a rigorous schedule-they continuously got their nourishment in the womb-just feeling HUNGER is a new thing to them. They need the nourishment as much as they can get it at first. Within a few weeks though-you will see them start to develop their own pattern. Look for it-and encourage it. When the baby starts to fuss, hold her and play with her instead of feeding her right away. Postpone it as long as you can (even just five or ten minutes). Then feed her. The next time, do it again. If you continue to do that-you will go from incessant feedings to 4 or 5, to 3 or 4. They will be BIGGER and longer feedings-but further and farther between. Not all babies can handle a lot in their tummy at once-sometimes smaller feedings are better for those with sensitive stomachs or for children with stomach problems. You are the parent. You know what is best for your child. It is MY opinion, however, that children without problems, who are fed less but more (meaning less often but more per sitting) are often more content, more easily transition to scheduled table food sittings, sleep better and are healthier. Why? Because children who are fed on demand eat LESS…making them hungry more often. Their little bellies do not have that full feeling for very long…because they metabolize the food so much more quickly. They get uncomfortable and hungry more often because they feel HUNGRY making them upset and even waking them up frequently, they don’t gain weight as easily-because the food is metabolized so quickly, and they are not put into any routine at all-making the transition to table food and weaning that much more difficult. On a side note-babies who are demand fed, often get food when they are hurt. Comforting should not be associated with food. Babies should find comfort in soothing, loving, hugging, kissing, and rocking-not with food. UNLESS the discomfort they are feeling is that of hunger. It always makes me nervous because it may encourage ‘food for comfort’ later in life-not a healthy habit AT ALL. Food should not be a comforter. Parents should. Love should.
I realize, as I said, every mother has her own soapbox knows the best about nursing/bottle feeding, demand/scheduled feeding, etc. This post is coming across that way too, even though I don’t want it to. Once again I say-this is my OPINION and you are welcome to your own.
Once your child becomes a toddler and is on table food alone, this comes into play even more so. Toddlers all the way up to teenagers need to be taught healthy eating habits-not just WHAT to eat, but when to eat it. I am a firm believer in three meals a day plus one snack. I don’t agree with people letting their kids graze throughout the day. (Which is probably why I like having my babies get on schedule, when they appear to be ready.) It is not healthy for adults to just eat and eat and eat all throughout the day. Especially since, most foods that you just nibble on or graze are unhealthy-the things you don’t have to prepare. Chips. Cookies. Junk. So why should we allow our kids to do so?
Children are MUCH more active than adults and so still need snacks. But I always make SURE that meals are EATEN. If we encourage lots of snacks-we encourage the not-so-healthy foods versus the wholesome good foods at mealtime. If children know that they will get any food they want, even if they don’t eat their suppers, which do you think they will choose? It is important to give your kids breakfast, lunch, and dinner-REAL foods. Then, when they eat all that, if they are still hungry, between meals, give them healthy snacks! Corynn has begun is to complain about being hungry ALL hours of the day. Even after just having had meals- (that she didn’t finish, might I add!) It frustrates me to no end-but I will not give her snack foods to satisfy her hunger if she refuses to finish her meals. She will eventually learn that she must eat all of her food to get snacks. Once she eats all of her food, she won’t need snacks, I am sure. But lately, she wants the crackers instead of the soup or the grapes instead of the chicken. I would encourage you (and myself because I NEED it!) to skip the snacks all together if they refuse to eat real food and DEFINITELY desserts...not that we have THOSE all that often! We want our children growing up with a well balanced diet. Not one accustomed to crackers, cookies, and other snack foods.
The way I see it, we are raising our children with the goal of their becoming adults and so we should encourage them in adult habits. And
eating three meals a day is HEALTHY and a REALISTIC thing for adults to do-and therefore kids should follow suite. Now adjustments must be made…if they are STILL hungry after eating all their meals-they must need some more. Don’t starve your kids…just don’t let them fool you with their “I’m hungry…” meaning I don’t want dinner…I want CANDY!
Scheduling is also important in the way of sleep…but that subject is for another day! This post is already entirely too long and will probably enflame entirely too many people. :-)
20 comments:
I think the issue is different for a newborn or less than six months old infant than for a toddler, and of course every child is different. Every baby has a slightly different metabolism, and this is not an issue of personality structure or spoiled nature--some babies just need to feed smaller, more frequent meals than others. The debate over the feeding guidelines in Ezzo parenting seems to indicate that some babies do ok with his rigid feeding scheduling; other babies, in contrast, lose interest entirely in feeding and develop failure to thrive. The key is to see what your baby needs. If the baby is not growing approximately parallel to the pediatrician's growth charts, or is reluctant to feed, it probably needs to be encouraged to feed more rather than less. Most pediatricians and child psychiatrists would argue that it is impossible to "spoil" a baby for the first six months of its life.
After the child is a toddler, of course, it is a different story, and there I think it is right to insist on good eating habits and eating meals at mealtime.
"The debate over the feeding guidelines in Ezzo parenting seems to indicate that some babies do ok with his rigid feeding scheduling; other babies, in contrast, lose interest entirely in feeding and develop failure to thrive. The key is to see what your baby needs."
I don't know anything about Ezzo-actually, haven't even heard of it before. Rigid feeding schedules is not something I would endorse, in that-you shouldn't wait until 6pm EVERY night if your baby is hungry or force him/her to eat at 6pm when he/she is NOT hungry. Feeding at specific times is not so important as 'full' feedings. As you said, though, that needs to be tempered with the needs of your individual child. If a stomach can only handle small quantities..of course, we want our children to be COMFORTABLE.
Your last sentence hit the nail on the head- to see what your baby needs.
I just want to encourage people who feel like their children don't get enough FOOD when they only eat four times a day versus twelve-that that is NOT true in any way. Children who eat four times a day get as much food as children who 'snack' nurse. The difference is in quantity.
Thanks for your insights...looks like you may be the only one brave enough to step up to the plate! ;-) just kidding!
Brave? I'm brave! (And foolish and long-winded, etc., etc.)
All right, you did it! I’ve been so good lately about keeping out of lengthy electronic discussions, but you suckered me into this one! : )
It’s hard to respond with a short comment, too, because I both agree and disagree with your opinions. Now prepare yourself for a flood of words….
*Disclaimer: I’m a young mom, so anything I say should be taken with a bucket of salt. I noticed a difference of temperament and needs between Annika and Millie, and I know this next baby could be entirely different again, forcing me to adjust my opinions a bit.
**Disclaimer #2: Please don't take my comments and opinions as comments against how you choose to feed and raise your children. You're raising Corynn, who is healthy, beautiful, and polite, and I wouldn't want to seem to suggest anything otherwise!
***I’ve put your comments in bold.
ON SLEEP:
It only makes sense that children should have fairly regular bedtime schedules; I'm pretty sure we agree here. It makes sense for adults, too, tho' I'm an offender! Before electricity was commonplace, adults went to sleep earlier, rose earlier, and had done the equivalent of an Abigail's full day's work before Abigail even wakes up! The sun went down, the sun rose up, and mankind did the same. So, although I give Millie a bit more leeway with her bedtime, which is normally between 8 and 9 o'clock, Annie goes to bed like clockwork around 8 almost every night. I don't place my entire confidence in studies, but all the studies that support the need for children (and adults) to have a regular and full night's sleep mesh perfectly with the created rhythm.
A BROAD WORD ON SCHEDULES:
I agree that children do need a certain amount of scheduling. It gives them confidence and security to live in a world that's not constantly in topsy-turvy flux. I think that regular bedtimes and family mealtimes are particularly important, apart from the occasional and inevitable breaks in schedule (visits, etc.). That said, I think it’s possible to enforce scheduling too rigidly, which has its own pitfalls.
BROADLY ON NEWBORN FEEDING SCHEDULES:
I believe Gary Ezzo and his Babywise book take newborn scheduling to a ridiculous and harmful extreme, and it's amazing to me how many Christian families have used his "techniques." I'm leery of any "one size fits all" plan because, as you rightly said, babies eventually develop their own unique schedules without any help, and the mother is most fit to recognize and adjust to those schedules.
A baby’s schedule may not always be recognizable as such to us, though. Growth spurts and other factors unseen by us can cause their schedule (which still is a schedule despite the fact that it’s not as tidy as one we could enforce) to vary widely. I was so glad when you wrote that newborns shouldn’t be forced into a rigid feeding schedule! Ezzo thinks they should be, and even though he’s been widely discounted by Christian and secular physicians alike, people still continue to follow his methods.
SCHEDULED FEEDING FOR NEWBORNS:
I fed on demand with Annika and Millie both and plan to do so with the rest of my babies. We differ a bit here, because I think that mothers should feed babies, particularly those under 6 months, on demand. All of my comments in response to yours are based on your statement that you begin a bit of scheduling within a month of the baby’s birth, but my comments remain the same for little babies in general, not just fresh-out-of-the-womb babies.
You said, “They need the nourishment as much as they can get it at first,” which I agree with completely, but I also believe they need nourishment as much as they can get it for many months afterward as the mother’s milk is their sole source of nutrition, and their bodies constantly develop at such a lightning rate, inside and out.
“When the baby starts to fuss, hold her and play with her instead of feeding her right away. Postpone it as long as you can (even just five or ten minutes). Then feed her. The next time, do it again. If you continue to do that-you will go from incessant feedings to 4 or 5, to 3 or 4.”
As you already know, most babies give preliminary signals of hunger (wiggling, sucking fists, mouthing, rooting, etc.) before they even begin to cry. Crying because of huger is often the baby's last resort. Letting a baby cry for 5-10 minutes and then going ahead and nursing anyway seems unnecessary and counter-productive to me. If the baby is hungry enough for the mother to feed, then he or she should be fed as soon as possible. I don’t think (warning: OPINION!) that delaying nursing when the baby needs food in order to “help” him or her eat less frequently during the day is beneficial for their emotional or their physical health.
You wrote that after postponing feeding like this for a bit, “Within a few weeks though-you will see them start to develop their own pattern." I think that this developing pattern, though, is completely their own. Their bodies begin to adjust to the time schedule the mother introduces (however gently) because they have no choice. When hunger is present and feeding is consistently delayed, the body automatically goes into a kind of defense mechanism; the body slows down its metabolism and stores nutrients as fat, not allowing as many nutrients to be used by the body. This mechanism allows humans to survive longer during famines, so it’s not surprising that it would allow babies to go longer without fussing for food. This ability to go longer without food does not mean that they don’t need it, though; it simply means that, out of necessity, their bodies are “saving” nutrients that would normally be used more quickly.
"Because children who are fed on demand eat LESS…making them hungry more often. Their little bellies do not have that full feeling for very long…because they metabolize the food so much more quickly. They get uncomfortable and hungry more often because they feel HUNGRY making them upset and even waking them up frequently, they don’t gain weight as easily-because the food is metabolized so quickly, and they are not put into any routine at all-making the transition to table food and weaning that much more difficult."
I do think that mothers can go overboard with nursing and use it as a crutch or even offer the breast when the baby shows no need for it for any reason, and I agree that has its problems, too, but I don’t agree with some of the generalizations here (and I know it’s a pain to write things over the Internet, and I’m probably twisting your opinions way out of context!). I’ve never heard that a quick metabolism causes babies to not gain weight as easily; it would only cause weight gain problems if needed nutrition was being withheld. And babies to whom God gave a naturally quick metabolism should not be trained to wait for food when they’re hungry. Yes, a result of making them wait will be that their metabolism will slow down, but a slow metabolism should not be a goal!
Also, baby feeding patterns and needs are as varied as can be, and although some patterns definitely exist, broad statements can’t apply to all. Millie and Annika, both fed on demand, gained weight beautifully (remember Millie’s ROLLS), and their pediatrician is always delighted with their height and weight ratio. Millie has lost her baby rolls, she’s packed with muscle, and I expect Annie to follow suit.
"It is MY opinion, however, that children without problems, who are fed less but more (meaning less often but more per sitting) are often more content, more easily transition to scheduled table food sittings, sleep better and are healthier.
I use the introduction of solid food after six months to start the very beginning of scheduling, and I don’t see a link between demand feeding and children having trouble transitioning to scheduled table food sittings. Feeding babies a bit of solid food with the family meals is a perfect way to introduce mealtime schedules without interrupting or altering the natural needs of their bodies. I’ve had no problem with either of the girls sitting for regular meals, and they’ve learned as they’ve grown. I don’t think it’s necessary to impose outside feeding schedules on a young baby, and I think it can, in fact, be detrimental.
Sleeping issues: some babies wake up no matter what and some sleep no matter what. My sister’s youngest has had weight gain issues since she was born, and she was sleeping through the night when she was just a few months old! As far as health and contentment go, I would need some cold, hard facts in order to agree with this. I’m a young and relatively unseasoned mother, but I have two extremely healthy girls who ate frequently as babies, and I think their differing states of contentment were due to personality differences rather than how they ate as babies, because I fed them both on demand.
"On a side note-babies who are demand fed, often get food when they are hurt. Comforting should not be associated with food. Babies should find comfort in soothing, loving, hugging, kissing, and rocking-not with food. UNLESS the discomfort they are feeling is that of hunger. It always makes me nervous because it may encourage ‘food for comfort’ later in life-not a healthy habit AT ALL. Food should not be a comforter. Parents should. Love should."
Oh, dear. You’re going to think I’m a curmudgeon. I stopped writing about all the things I agreed with because my “comment” was stretching miles long, but all these quibbles are making me seem like a black-hearted bickerer. Please, please soften my opinions with the knowledge that they are just that, and that I agree with much that I’m not mentioning.
That said, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with nursing for comfort. The comfort nursing provides when a baby is hurt is not food-centered, but intimacy-centered. Nursing is the most intimate and comforting experience a mother will ever be able to give her baby, and it provides more security for a young baby than hugging, kissing, and rocking can.
I also agree that parents and love should be used as comforters instead of food. For example, if an 8-month old fell down and bonked her head, I wouldn’t start spooning mashed banana into her mouth. I would, though, nurse her without qualms. I don’t think Nursing = Food. Nursing serves multiple, vitally important functions- one of those is providing physical nourishment, yes, but another, equally important function is that of providing security and intimacy; babies know this, which is why they are comforted when nursed after being hurt. They don’t stop crying because the milk is so delicious; they stop because they are enveloped in the most intimate, emotionally secure spot that exists outside of the womb. When a baby nurses to soothe a hurt, they only suckle temporarily, because they know their need is emotional, not physical.
As far as fears about future problems with using food for comfort, I don’t think a link can be supported. My mom fed seven children on demand, including nursing for comfort, and I’m one of the “chubbier” ones (you've met Becky, so you know). None of us have had problems with food, weight, or eating disorders, unless one counts a strong liking for sweets a problem! That unhealthy love of sweets, though, is due to my dad’s influence, his purchase of twinkies, and the simple fact that sweets are yummyummyummy. I think that the environment one is raised in through childhood- the type of food and the attitudes toward food- can shape future problems, but I can't imagine these occurring from being nursed for comfort. More importantly, I don't think it would have ever been an issue in long years past, when food wasn't in such abundance as it is here. Mothers instinctively nurse to provide comfort, and in eras in which there wasn't a glut of unhealthy, prepared junk food, I doubt they gave it a second thought.
IN SHORT....
I look at the reasons against demand feeding, and most of them ring hollow to me. Yes, if young babies are put on a schedule, mothers may get more sleep and have more "off" time (although, if the baby is anything like my oldest, colicky brother was, nothing would help!), but these reasons don't outweigh the physical and emotional benefits of feeding young babies when the natures God instilled in them demand food.
ALMOST DONE! WAHOO!
You’re RIGHT ON about giving healthy meals and snacks to toddlers. Many problems with food develop in childhood, and giving nutrient-empty snacks instead of fruits, veggies, and grains is A Very Bad Thing (but I stuff the girls full of graham crackers whenever we’re out grocery shopping, so what does that say about my consistency!). In order to be consistent with my nit-picking, though, I’ll just be the devil’s advocate for smaller, more frequent meals for adults as well as children. (The girls and I eat 3 meals a day with snacks in between, so be aware that I'm not speaking against 3 meals a day.)
It’s currently accepted (and data supports the fact) that eating smaller, more frequent meals during the day instead of only breakfast, lunch, and a huge, ol’ supper gives multiple benefits, including, but not limited to, better blood sugar control (which is especially beneficial for diabetics), an increase in metabolism (which helps the body more efficiently build muscle and use nutrients instead of storing them as fat), lose weight (which is good for chubby, sweet-loving people like me), and much more.
The trick is, like you said, is to ensure that the snacks and meals are healthy ones. If a person follows the recommended 5-6 smaller meals a day and eats junk at those meals, they’ll reverse the benefits and turn them into detriments!
Sorry I ramble so fluidly. I really need to buy a good muzzle.
Thanks for putting up with me, Rebecca. I appreciate your willingness to allow others to comment in a non-threatening forum, and I admire your graciousness in actually reading this far (if you did!). And if you DID make it this far, let it be known that you are a mighty Queen of Virtue, because you’ve put up with more Abigail-blabber than most can.
Oh, here’s an article I just found but haven’t read carefully yet. It’s related to scheduled feedings, etc., but probably refers to much more rigid scheduling than what you refer to. And, with my luck, because I didn’t read it carefully, it will probably be a keen argument against all my opinions!
Um... that should read "I DON'T think that this developing pattern, though, is completely their own."
Sorry. (I slink away, blushing...)
Abby,
Thanks so much for your post! You have a much better way of putting your thoughts into words than I do! I agree 100% with everything that you said!
Rebecca,
I have demand-fed both of my boys and will continue to do the same with my other children. Demand-feeding dimishes as the babies get older. Noah is now 20 months and does not get to nurse every time he asks. As my children start to rely more heavily on other foods for nutrition, I don't let them nurse every time they want to.
I also comfort-nurse my babies which I will continue to do with my other children. John is now 3 and when he gets hurt he does not ask me for food to comfort him, he asks me to kiss his boo-boo or give him a hug. Noah is comfort-nursed only about 50% of the time now. Many times he asks for a kiss if he gets hurt.
As Abby said, every baby is different! John and Noah were pretty much opposites! John has a very fast metabolism like Scott and needed to nurse all day and night for several months! Noah on the other hand could go for longer stretches between nursings. When our next baby comes along I'm sure he/she will be different still!
Please remember that Corynn was a super-easy baby!!! Peanut may have different needs and not be as easily "scheduled."
I could go on but Abby has done a great job of explaining my opinions, maybe without even knowing it! Thanks again, Abby!
These are fun and educational posts, full of thought, so I suppose I should put in my 2 cents worth, for what they are worth-only 2 cents.
First, let me start off by not criticizing you Leah, but offering a different view of Corynn than "super-easy" Rebecca and I have up until the past few weeks because of Faith gotten together at least 1x a week since Corynn was just a tot. She has a stubborn streak a mile high, which I have seen at home and in the store. Rebecca would tell her no, and Corynn would look at Rebecca and do whatever she was doing over again. Rebecca would then tell Corynn that she would "get a spank" if she did it again, and Corynn would look at Rebecca once again with those soulful dark eyes and whatever she was doing would happen again. Rebecca would give Corynn a spank, explain why, and ask Corynn to apologize to her. This has happened time and time again. I think that it is easy to misrepresent "being super-easy" to "being consistently disciplined" Please don't take this as anything but a differing view. I just think Rebecca should be patted on the back for working so hard to mold Corynn into a godly vessel.
Now, on to my opinion of scheduling. I guess, upon reading what others have written,I am a borderline scheduler and here is why. I wholeheartedly agree that a consistent schedule is the best way. Samuel like clockwork is heading off to slumberland at 7:30 pm (he is ready on his own now even though every night I would start readying him at that time), Wayne goes to bed at 8:00 pm and Samantha the middle school goes to bed at 8:30 pm. When I met Bob and the kids they had no bedtimes. They became unglued and off the wall more often because they were over-tired and didn't know when to go to bed unless they were exhausted because they didn't want to miss anything. Wayne would become extra naughty and Samantha extra emotional. When we got married I said "enough is enough" and started bedtimes, at first both at the same time, but now that Samantha is older she goes to bed a little later. Bob has to get up at 3:30 am, and I at 5:10 am for work. I in particular need a little down time away from the kids, even if it is only a half hr, and they don't become unglued nearly as much (and handle themselves a little better in school too)
I also have specific breakfast,lunch and dinnertimes that I enforce at home for our family, HOWEVER I do demand-feed Samuel in between those times. I feel like if he is hungry why force him to wait. He must need it, otherwise he wouldn't be fussing. Sometimes, right before he falls asleep he gives me this big smile as if to say "thank you mama, you're just what I needed" I've been told that you shouldn't nurse your baby to sleep, but I relish those moments. Now Samuel sleeps thru the night from 7:30 pm - 5:30ish am, only getting up occasionally. He is also such a happy, contented boy, which makes me wonder if part of it might be due to me meeting his needs so fully that he is content. (maybe not, but at least I can "dream")In any case, if Samuel needs me I want to be there for him, while continuing on my mealtime regime.
So, now that I've added another chapter to the scheduling book- I hope I've offended no one by my views and opinions. If I have, it was not my intent, and I apologize. From the "borderline scheduler" :)
Elizabeth,
I should have been more specific with my comment about Corynn. I should have said that as a baby and even up until the last several months Corynn has been an easy child to care for. She started sleeping through the night when she was just a few weeks old, etc.
I also know that Matt and Rebecca both work very hard at being consistent with their discipline of Corynn which is why she is good so much of the time.
Maybe it is best that I not comment on friend's blogs when it comes to controversial topics.
Leah,
I was afraid you might be offended by my comment about Corynn,and that is why I prefaced and ended my post that my intent wasn't to offend just to add a differing opinion is all. I apologize again if you took my comment as anything but "a different swing on things" I hope that you do feel free to express your feelings and opinions- it's important to be able to talk amongst friends even if we don't always see things the same way- everyone has different eye prescriptions and some don't need them at all because things are clear to them- the end result is the same though, we each see things clearly, just sometimes in a different fashion :)
LEAH~
No Leah-you SHOULD. Please don't stop. On the contrary. I started this 'controversy' as a way for people to get viewpoints. Among FRIENDS-we should not become offended or get defensive so easily:THEREFORE, we can be confident and comfortable sharing our viewpoints even if they differ....because they will be received in love. Further, talking about things that perhaps friends disagree with should STRENGTHEN not only their own views on the matter, but their ties with one another as well-not weaken them.
I posted this topic knowing full well that I will probably be the loner and minority-but just because that is so, doesn't mean we should avoid all discussion of the matter. I am VERY glad that you posted and will ask that you do not be hindered from doing so in the future.
Thank you for clearing that up about Corynn. Elizabeth responded the way that she did because of the great reaction I have gotten from so many people. EVERYONE I know tells me that Corynn is how she is only because she was born super-easy and super-good. It is a struggle because those people (and I DON'T mean you so don't take this the wrong way!) have children who are less than desirable and use that as an 'out' for their bad parenting. It is a constant frustration with me-until just recently I came to the realization that "who cares who they give credit to?" I will not do the things I do to SHOW anyone what is the right way to do things or to gain credit for myself. I know full well that I will ALWAYS hear-"your children are just super easy or super good." "Just wait-You just haven't gotten a bad one yet." or even better-"Just wait to have two. Or three. Or four." People will always have SOME excuse for themselves and some way of looking over the true parenting that goes on. I will never match up-so I shouldn't try. Instead, I will be digilent in my child-rearing because I believe that the Lord is very clear on his expectations for us. I will continue to do what I am doing now-for my children, my husband, and in submission to God. Not for myself or my own selfish motives or for anyone else. I say this-only so you understand why Elizabeth 'defended' me.
Now-my response to the topic of Corynn is this. While it is true that Corynn was an 'easier' baby....she set up her own schedule veyr easily; she was always cautious in her actions; she always wanted to please me; and the fact that she enjoys sleep-I will not say that she just fell into her own sleeping through the night. Matt and I worked with her on that...lengthening her night feedings little by little each night (which was very easy since she, as I said, likes to sleep.) Until one night, she slept through the night. Matt said, "If she can doit once-she should be able to do it all the time." So-we let her cry it out after that (or at least for a while-if she fell asleep, great. If not, there was genuine need.) We could have very easily gone to her every time she cried-without giving her opportunity to fall asleep on her own, and in doing so, she could have not slept through the night for a very very long time. If we trained her that I would come when she cried-she would certainly do it more often...I have no doubt. And so, I DO take SOME credit for her sleeping through the night so early on.
ELIZABETH-I appreciate your response both in my defense and as another viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with not agreeing completely with me. As I intended to bring out, but failed miserably, in my post is that this whole FEEDING issue-scheduling and such is not something ANYONE can MANDATE. It is an OPINION that everyone is entitled to. It doesn't say anywhere is scripture that you should or should NOT demand feed-and so I will not claim to do so. These were the reasons I choose for myself NOT to demand feed or comfort nurse.
And BTW-I am sure that part of Samuel's sweet disposition IS in the love that you are constantly giving him. Children who are raised in homes that are loving, that they TRUST, and who are cared for by those who meet their every need are of course to thrive. So you CAN pat yourself on the back. Samuel trusts you for his needs and is completely oblivious to the negative...sheilding him from fear of pain and hunger-leading him to rest easy and be happy!
Abby-Now for YOU! ;-)
I wonder how long a comment can be-but I think if yours was THAT long...I may be able to squeeze ALL the comments to everyone on one! hehehe :-)
Touch'e! You have got me! Much of what I said WAS subjective. Speculation. My opinion. I can not back up these facts (meaning children who eat more with less frequency are more content, are healthier, blah blah blah. That has just been my experience (not personal mind you-but with people I know... Of course your girls didn't come to mind-but even if they had-in all honesty, I thought you schedule fed-so I would have thought your girls would have been a positive example for my point.
1st-You wrote on sleep-which I purposely only touched upon briefly. Actually, not to steal my own thunder-but I plan to do another 'controversial post' on sleep in the coming weeks. Actually, sleep I feel CAN be backed with Scripture so it may not be as controversial.
"Growth spurts and other factors unseen by us can cause their schedule (which still is a schedule despite the fact that it’s not as tidy as one we could enforce) to vary widely."
This is VERY true-with ALL children...including Corynn. Often, you have to scratch the routine-even if it has been going well for a long time-when you notice that your child just NEEDS more food as in the case of a growth spurt. That is we are not just milk machines-but mothers. We need to know when our babies are still hungry and DO our job and feed them.
"As you already know, most babies give preliminary signals of hunger (wiggling, sucking fists, mouthing, rooting, etc.) before they even begin to cry. Crying because of huger is often the baby's last resort. Letting a baby cry for 5-10 minutes and then going ahead and nursing anyway seems unnecessary and counter-productive to me."
The first is true...but those signals can also mean a sore stomach (gas), teething, tiredness, general discomfort, uncomfortable temperature, etc. I do not think it is counter productive to wait 5-10 minutes to nurse-I guess we just disagree on this point. It seems to me that if you use those 5-10 minutes to hold your child and 'investigate' any further cause-it can only do GOOD. Not always is it hunger, but if hunger is assumed, your child will be fed unecessarily. Some children refuse the breast (or bottle) when they are not hungry...and some just get a belly ache and throw it all back up. You can't count on them to know that they should eat when they are hungry-and refrain when they are not.
I do plan to start (gently) trying to extend feeding lengths around 2 months. I feel the first two months newborns are just trying to adjust to all the newness of post-uterus life. I did it earlier with Corynn because she did it herself. Her being earlier than that was of her own doing. So-just wanted to clear that up so you didn't think I was enforcing a rigid schedule on a newborn. (And regardless of WHEN I start-I would never think my methods 'rigid'.)
In response to your comments on the slowing of metabolism...first of all, it is assumed that the baby is indeed hungry. What I submit, is that mothers often feed their children when they cry because they assume that they are hungry-which in fact, may mask the REAL discomfort. If you are 'starved' consistently, then yes-your metabolism slows. AS in the case of famines and such. I am of course, NOT endorsing starving. I am simply suggesting to postpone feeding until the REAL cause is found..and the time is lengthened. The waiting of five minutes is not going to slow down a metabolism-if that were a concern, I think we would see a lot of cars on the side of the road nursing their babies. I am not suggesting that eating large portions gives children a slow metabolism and eating small portions gives your child a fast metabolism. Our children-and all people, HAVE their metabolism pretty much established. Of course, eating smaller portions of food would allow the food to be metabolized faster (not because it makes for a FAST metabolism but because their is a smaller amount of food to be metabolized.) In the same way-having a full stomach will take longer for your (slow OR fast) metabolism to break down than a smaller portion. That is all I was saying.
Here is the thing. I didn't bring this out enough-unfortunately, in my post. I saw how long it was getting, so I 'cut it back' so as not to bore. I should not have cut this back since this is the main disagreement I have with demand feeding. With demand feeding, I am afraid too often, we as mothers are afraid to extend our babies' feeding time because we are afraid the 'less' our babies eat, the more hungry they are-and the MORE they eat, the more filled they are. This is just not true. A child who eats 4 or 5 times a day versus 12 times a day both eat what they need...whether in small increments or in large doses-but never do children who only eat every four hours-go hungry. They eat more at the next sitting. It is entirely possible for children to eat less and get just as many nutrients as one that eats LOTS. And it is also entirely possible for children to eat because it is THERE-even though the original problem was NOT hunger-but something else. Those are my concerns.
"The comfort nursing provides when a baby is hurt is not food-centered, but intimacy-centered.I don’t think Nursing = Food. Nursing serves multiple, vitally important functions- one of those is providing physical nourishment, yes, but another, equally important function is that of providing security and intimacy"
As far as comfort feeding...I am still adamently opposed to it for myself. Of course, I do not have the right to dictate my decision to anyone other than myself. While nursing is not only food but an intimate bonding experience...it is intimate because it is close, it is bonding because your baby trusts you to meet his need for food and is thankful in his/her way that you are doing a good job at that. Holding your child tenderly and close (in Corynn's case, she would bury her head in my neck), stroking her face and crooning is no less intimate than nursing. I think, again-PERSONALLY-that food should be entirely seperate from comfort in the case of pain. Of course-when you comfort HUNGER, that is another hting entirely because you CAN'T have one without the other. As far as my future estimation goes-though you and your family turned out great, I am almost certain that you did so because you were properly comforted SEPERATE from food as well. Meaning-your mother didn't just stick you to the breast, then, when you were calm, let you down. I am sure there was a measure of comfort and love shown seperately. It is the true comfort that you received that taught you what you needed for true comfort as adults-along with the lessons of healthy eating that you recieved. Of course-I have no idea if I am right...but assume so because I can not possibly imagine a child learning a healthy way of comfort if only given the breat-and the association with food.
Now-I hope I have adressed everything...I HAVE to get off this computer. Matt wants to do family devotions to prepare our hearts for the Sabbath-and I have been on here for entirely too long anyway. IF there is anything I missed-let me know.
Outside of that, I appreciate all comments everyone gave and really value having people willing to discuss controversial topics with openness, gentleness, and virtue.
A virtuous wife opens her mouth with wisdom and on her tongue is kindness." Proverbs 31:26
I wager none of us have time for comments as long as my last (I know I don't!). This is an important issue to me, though, so here's a second long comment to sicken you entirely... :)
Again, my comments refer mostly to babies under 6 months, though they could probably be applied to babies under 12 months, too.
It seems superfluous to mention this, because I’m pretty sure you know I’m not criticizing you one bit, but I am not thinking of you and your children at all and am simply writing about these issues in general. In general...except when I have to give specific examples from the only two babies I’ve had outside the womb!
"…those signals can also mean a sore stomach (gas), teething, tiredness, general discomfort, uncomfortable temperature, etc."
I didn't mean to imply, of course, that every time a baby cries, he or she is hungry, or that mothers should pop the baby on the breast immediately when crying begins. I simply meant that attentiveness can often help avoid the crying stage all together, which is usually the baby's last resort after giving other, less audible signals. I never noticed either of my girls rooting or sucking their fists because of gas, high temp., etc., though that doesn't mean other babies don't. They definitely fussed and cried with these discomforts, and I could tell the difference between a "hunger cry" and a "ouch, gas hurts! cry". The funny thing is, with Millie (but not with Annie), nursing helped her get the gas out! Eating a bit would not only comfort her, but it would help the gas leave more quickly. It’s too bad that Annie’s body didn’t function similarly, because her gas lasted much longer, and she was much harder to soothe. I walked and patted and crooned, but, understandably she wasn’t happy until the gas was gone. Just a plug for nursing easing gas pains, is all….
"You can't count on them to know that they should eat when they are hungry-and refrain when they are not." Yep, I disagree! I think mothers can certainly count on babies to know that they should eat when they are hungry. Of course mothers can fall into overfeeding if they force milk constantly, but that is where the mother's attentiveness comes into play. Just as a mother should watch for signals her baby gives when hungry, she should watch for signals of a filling belly. Even though Millie was a chub and was demand-fed for her early babyhood, she gave signals that her tummy was filling. It's the mother's job to appropriately respond to those signals (intermittent sucking, decreasing interest, etc.). Also, I simply don't think that "overfeeding" a baby on mother's milk for the first six months or so is as unhealthy as you seem to (formula and solid foods are another matter), and I've found no medical literature to the contrary. I've seen too many babies who were demand-fed mother’s milk as infants (and were healthily chubby) grow to healthy, slender 7 and 8-year olds. In my personal experience, I've seen none of the correlations between demand feeding and lack of weight gain, less contentment, or future weight problems, though you have. (Different nieces, nephews, and siblings, I warrant!) I think these problems are much more closely tied to personality or other environmental issues.
You wrote, "As far as my future estimation goes-though you and your family turned out great, I am almost certain that you did so because you were properly comforted SEPERATE from food as well. Yep, we were, but nursing for comfort was a definite part of our babyhood. I don't advocate a mother immediately nursing in every situation a baby needs comfort; that'd be just plain silly. I just think that the intimacy of nursing (which, by its nature, is more physically intimate than other forms of comfort) is not misused when given for comfort, and I respectfully agree to disagree. You'd just better get out the fisticuffs next time I come calling! : )
Okay, metabolism... You know, it's funny; I would never have used metabolism in defense of demand feeding (because that's not my primary reasoning) had you not first mentioned it. I shift the blame to you!
"The waiting of five minutes is not going to slow down a metabolism"
You're correct about a mere five-minute wait, and many times, I've waited more than five minutes to nurse because of more pressing factors. I also think a mother should be as aware as possible of the reasons for her baby's cries. I was trying to communicate that I don't think an obviously hungry baby should have to wait simply for scheduling reasons. That, to me, is counter-productive to the best for baby.
Of course, eating smaller portions of food would allow the food to be metabolized faster (not because it makes for a FAST metabolism but because their is a smaller amount of food to be metabolized.) In the same way-having a full stomach will take longer for your (slow OR fast) metabolism to break down than a smaller portion. In the same way-having a full stomach will take longer for your (slow OR fast) metabolism to break down than a smaller portion."
I think we might have a different understanding of the body's metabolism. By writing, "eating smaller portions of food would allow the food to be metabolized faster (not because it makes for a FAST metabolism but because their is a smaller amount of food to be metabolized," you imply that metabolism is only the amount of calories the body burns, without recognizing the metabolic rate, which is the speed at which these calories are consumed. This speed at which the body burns calories is sometimes referred to as "metabolism"; its rate varies from human to human, but, as I wrote before, it can change depending on meal frequency, eating styles, and amount of exercise.
It exists whether the portion is large or small, and skipping meals (by adults or children) is not recommended because it causes the metabolism to slow down and the body to store nutrients as fat. Scheduling young babies who would normally need more frequent meals can, of course, be done successfully, if success is measured only by the fact that they begin to follow the schedule. This view of "successful," however, neglects the fact that bodies will adjust to less frequent meals because they must, not only because, sans schedule, they would normally not need more frequent feedings.
Some of your comments imply that babies who are demand fed eat less per feeding than babies who eat 4-5 times a day. I've never measured and compared the ounces of milk a scheduled baby eats per day vs. a demand-fed baby, so I can’t assume the amounts are comparable, although they may be. Babies nurse so differently that I wouldn’t even know where to start. The needs of babies vary, though, so it's not really an issue, I guess.
Millie would often eat for 45 minutes at a time in her first 4 months, and she would eat many more than 4-5 times a day. Less of a chub, Annie was in the 50th percentile of height and weight, and I would often feed her for 30 minutes at a time. Her belly was as full as it could be when she was finished, but she still gave hunger signals two hours later, which led to many more feedings that I would consider “full” per day than four or five scheduled feedings would have. More frequent feedings doesn't necessarily mean that bellies are filled less than they would be with less frequent feedings (unless, during less frequent feedings, we stuffed them so much that their stomachs grew, which is possible).
Tying into this thought, you wrote, A child who eats 4 or 5 times a day versus 12 times a day both eat what they need...whether in small increments or in large doses-but never do children who only eat every four hours-go hungry." As I said, a baby’s metabolism can adjust, and, as they begin to store food, hunger signals would be dulled and eventually stop.
Now I certainly don't think all babies need to be fed on the same frequency (we agree here), but I think it’s misleading to believe that, even if a comparable amount of milk enters the baby, that 12 feedings = 4-5 feedings. Back to our strange metabolism dance (how did this start?), there are more factors involved in taking in and processing nutrients than simply the day's total caloric intake, and adjusting a baby’s innate schedule can alter these natural factors.
I doubt this discussion will change anyone's views...ah, well! We all agree that the core truth, and the most important one, is that baby's needs vary. I think we all agree that we should be open to differences between our children and flexible enough to adjust to their varied need.
P.S. And, just for the record, Millie, fed on demand, weaned herself at 12 months, even though I’d intended to nurse her longer. Easy for me!
P.S.S. Once my babies are eating solid food much more regularly, if they continue waking up 4 times a night to nurse, and that only in short stints, I do begin scheduling. At that point, they are old enough to not need more than 1 nightime feeding and often will begin sleeping through the night within a few nights.
Rebecca, I just wanted to let you know that you are missed at CMOMB.
Oh! I just checked your blog and noticed this. Hmmm. I will have to read it all and post something when I get a chance. I have been painting like a fiend lately!
I wanted to write a quick word about comfort-nursing.
While nursing appears to be a comfort for both mother and child, it shouldn't be the main association. If nursing was the main way to comfort babies, fathers would be left out.
Christ scorned the Jews by saying that God, as their Father, wanted to shelter and comfort them like a hen does to her chicks.
Chickens don't lactate.
So what do you make of this passage?
Isaiah 66:5-13
Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.
A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.
Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? [or] shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut [the womb]? saith thy God.
Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon [her] sides, and be dandled upon [her] knees.
As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Just curious.
Whew. After reading the comments, I am not sure I want to jump in, but Rebecca is right. We are among friends and should feel comfortable to discuss things, even if we have differing opinions.
I will start by saying that while I have two children, I have only nursed one of them. My first son was in the hospital for the first week of his life and was bottle fed there. He didn't want to nurse when he came home, and I was too overwhelmed to push the issue.
With Stephen, I really had no clue but I KNEW what I didn't want. A baby that was up all hrs of the night and slept during the day!! Sometimes, babies need their clocks to be adjusted with some help from their parents. With that said, I didn't schedule while he was very young because we both were still figuring things out.
He slept in a bassinet in my room (my husband was in the military in Korea), and I would hear every fuss he made. I would pick him up each time, and put him to the breast. You know what? Many times, he would turn his head, or latch on only to pop off quickly and resume his crying.
He started to sleep through the night by the age of 2m, therefore, I figured, why pester him if he made a noise in the middle of the night? I didn't get him up with every whimper, etc. Babies are loud sleepers. They snore and make all sorts of noises. That is part of the reason why he had his own room once he slept through the night.
I am not a strict scheduler by any means. Rebecca, if you google Ezzo, you can come up with some interesting things on him... I am also surprised, as Abby stated, that so many Christians claim he is wonderful and follow him to a "T" to the detriment of their children's health...
Rebecca, just so you know you aren't in the minority, I agree pretty much 100% with you and Matt. (Well, maybe you and I are the minority! LOL) I do not agree with comfort nursing at all. I firmly believe that the baby/toddler should look some place other than the breasts for comfort. They get their comfort as they are nursing at the breast, at the same time they are filling their bellies. When they get hurt or are tired/cranky, they should expect a hug, not a breast! Just my two cents...
I believe that some women really enjoy the nursing relationship and are afraid to see it go. Even though I must admit that I am not a gung-ho-yay-nursing-is-so-fun-type of gal, I felt a little sorrow when Stephen seemed to wean himself. So, I can understand somewhat those emotions. However, I just cannot picture myself unbuttoning my shirt every time one of my boys got upset. How do you draw the line with when you do and do not nurse for comfort? I would think they'd expect it every time something went wrong and would pitch a fit if they didn't get it right then and there. Again, my two cents...
I think that is all for now. I hope I made sense! :)
Leah,
I believe that Isa 66:5-13 is as true as Mt 23:37.
My point was that there are ways to comfort other than nursing.
Yes, Matt, I agree that there are other ways of comforting. My question is, according to Isaiah 66, is it WRONG to nurse for comfort? I think not. The word consolations in verse 11 means comfort!
ABBY~
"Yep, I disagree! I think mothers can certainly count on babies to know that they should eat when they are hungry."
Just for clarification: What I meant by that-which didn't work with type (or MY type, anyway) is that you can't count on babies to REFRAIN from eating when they are not hungry. Of course-I can see where you got the idea that the main thesis of the statement was that they don't know when TO eat just as much-but that was not my intent. I think, children can over-indulge to the point of ill-feeling just as much if not more than adults can when they are hungry and eat more than they need-and then feel so full they can't hardly walk...which should be happening several times in the next few months for me-with Thanksgiving and Christmas coming up. hehehe
"As I said, a baby’s metabolism can adjust, and, as they begin to store food, hunger signals would be dulled and eventually stop."
I guess I just don't put that much emphasis on metabolism slowing or stopping, hunger pains slowing or stopping...I just don't see how that is something that happens when a child is held off for small portions of time-and if it does...is it a problem or something that must be learned ANYHOW? You see what I mean? I know I am not making sense really so let me try a different approach. You said that when your children are put on solid food, you begin to schedule and train them according to typical eating patterns. Wouldn't the same be true then? Wouldn't you be dulling their hunger pains and doing to the toddler what you avoided doing to them as an infant because you didn't think it healthy? That doesn't necessarily need to be answered to me...my point is just, EVENTUALLY, children will have to learn to stretch the times between food. Why not teach them when they are infants (and I didn't say newborns on purpose here...) rather than reteach them when they are older?
"I doubt this discussion will change anyone's views...ah, well! We all agree that the core truth, and the most important one, is that baby's needs vary. I think we all agree that we should be open to differences between our children and flexible enough to adjust to their varied need."
Very true. I didn't intend to change any opinions either way-just make MY opinion known. :-) AS I told Michelle in church and my sister, feeding schedules is not something that one person can dictate to another. There are many levels of thoughts and opinions but they are just that, since there are no finite examples and lessons of such things in scripture. It is left to our own discretion and so we shouldn't be so bold as to claim to have all the answers and have a 'my-way-or-the-highway' attitude. It is just something that everyone decides for themselves and for their children. I am glad though, to have thought about it and discussed it. Most of the time, I find debates fun-although I must say, I am sort of getting tired of THIS topic. Perhaps I will start another topic soon.
MICHELLE~
Hallelujah! Someone who agrees with me? Now THAT IS something extraordinary! I will say, that I was emailed privately by a few women who said they agreed with me completely-but they didn't post, so the comments seemed very uneven. Oh well.
Reading your post told me several things about you that I didn't know. When we next meet, I would love to know why Matthew was hospitalized for so long and that story. I didn't realize that Stephen was your first that you nursed-OR that he was weaned! :-) Like you, nursing is nice and I miss is sometimes, but I am not the-what did you call it? "gung-ho-yay-nursing-is-so-fun-type of gal". That made me smile when I read it.
Thank you for saying your opinion either way-when you didn't comment at all, I wondered if I may have offended you...
LEAH~ Several people have said-actually, I think EVERYONE agrees that nursing can be comforting. I can at least vouch for my own thoughts-which were.... "While nursing is not only food but an intimate bonding experience...it is intimate because it is close, it is bonding because your baby trusts you to meet his need for food and is thankful in his/her way that you are doing a good job at that." Meaning: For several reasons-closeness, smell, touch, hearing-but MOSTLY because the HUNGER need is met, children find comfort at the breast. The child trusts you completely. Comfort is a BYPRODUCT of nursing-not the other way around. Everyone (who has posted here anyhow) agrees that some comfort is given during nursing. The scripture that you quoted speaks of the very same thing. It speaks of nursing as a comfort. But from what? WHY the comfort? Is it because a child should be comforted with the breast for EVERYTHING? Some things? Or perhaps it is saying that nursing is a comfort when you are hungry and you are statiated...and in the same way, you will be filled and comforted by my hand. I do not find that scripture to be in anyway, a go-ahead for comfort nursing. Instead, I believe it is an allegory used to explain the concept of comfort, trust and care.
blah. i think we're all discussed out on this issue. i don't have time to respond and you don't have time to read. hm. we should just move closer to binghamton....
quickly...
babies, due to their liquid diet, do need to eat more frequently when they're younger than when they are on solid food b/c the body breaks it down more quickly. plus, their bellies are smaller, and they're growing at a lightning rate. this is why i introduce the 'beginnings' of scheduling with solid food but not with liquid.
we all agree on this, probably, though, just as majority of the medical community does.
Post a Comment