Just a fluke? Share your experiences.

[nerdymom]

I attend two different "groups". One is a new mother support group, hosted at a hospital. The other is a babywearing group and is hosted at local libraries. I find the contrast between the two groups fascinating. The hospital group is very mainstream, the nurse / LC who runs thr group often recommends CIO, pushes solid foods and beginning the weaning process early. Most of the women who attend had a c/s. 75% FF, most do atleast some supplementing, vaxing is a given. The bwing group is a cooperative effort, lots of toddlers and older kids too now that school is out. Most bf, many extend bfing past 1 year, several nurse toddlers. A few home birthers, lot's of CDers. I don't know where people stand on the vax issue yet.

I enjoy both groups, but I admit I like the BWing one more, since I don't feel like the granola freak there.

I have observed that the babies who are my son's age are very different at the different groups. In the hospital group my DS is one two of his age group that are crawling, babbling, rolling over both ways, pulling up, and babbling. I found out that the mother of the other baby that is doing those things is a crunchy mama too. The other 7 month olds are not rolling over, hate tummy time, and not even close to crawling or pulling up. At the BWing group, all of the babies (around his age) are at the same developmental stages as my son, and even a little more advanced than he is.

The mothers have pretty much everything in commone except parenting style; the age ranges are the same, socio-economic status is the same, all the moms SAH, and a few from each group WAH. Yet there is a huge difference in the achievement of developmental milestones.

While I know that all babies develop differently, and that "milestones" are highly variable, I find the differences between these two groups intriguing. I was wondering if anyone else has experienced anything similar, especially with older kids. Or is this just a random fluke?

[D'sMama]

I avoid mainstream groups like the plague, so I can't really compare between them, but I do have a theory. Perhaps babies in the babywearing group spend far more time being held, carried, and observing the world and their mother's (or other caregiver's) interactions in it than those in the mainstream group. I would imagine that a baby who goes everywhere with mom and is worn all the time would be farther ahead of the curve developmentally than babies who spend their days in cribs and play gyms and swings and other "babysitters". Or maybe I should say those babies are behind the curve, since going everywhere with mom and being held is (IMO) the natural state that a baby expects to be in, kwim?

I think any gross motor skill development is going to have more to do with physical interaction and carrying than with breastfeeding, natural birthing, vaxing, etc. Although, I imagine CIO and other neglectful parenting "techniques" probably send those kids back a step as well, since we know it causes chemical imbalances and high stress states in their brains, which can't be good for facilitating exploration and gross motor development.

[Jesskathand]

I think its just a fluke. We are more like your BWing group, EBF til 6 months, still BFing. doing CLW, no vax, CD, BW, etc.

DS didn't crawl until he was over a year! He started doing this butt scoot thing around 8 months so thats how he got around. He just started walking at 15 months.

I have friends who parent similar to me and their babies did start walking much earlier.

My DH didn't walk until he was 17 months so I'm sure genetics play a part.

[D'sMama]

Actually, I bet breastfeeding contributes a little to physical development as well, since babies who breastfeed get so much regular physical contact with mom. Formula feeders can as well, if the mom holds and cradles baby as if she were BFing, but not the impersonal, bottle-propped way or when the bottle is held in baby's face while sitting in a stroller, etc.

I guess my point is that the more physical contact with a loving caregiver, the more likely that baby will reach physical milestones in good time. But that's just my theory!

[Jesskathand]

Originally Posted by D'sMama

Actually, I bet breastfeeding contributes a little to physical development as well, since babies who breastfeed get so much regular physical contact with mom. Formula feeders can as well, if the mom holds and cradles baby as if she were BFing, but not the impersonal, bottle-propped way or when the bottle is held in baby's face while sitting in a stroller, etc.

I guess my point is that the more physical contact with a loving caregiver, the more likely that baby will reach physical milestones in good time. But that's just my theory!

I agree with this as well as what I wrote above!

[Aubergine68]

I also believe that babywearing can contribute to earlier development of core muscle control and balance in babies (depending a bit on the frequency of wearing and the carriers and the positions).

Of my very small sample of 3, my first child was worn more due to family dynamic and life situation at that time (we were carfree and the subway wasn't very stroller-accessible). She crawled/walked 4 mo earlier than her brothers.

ETA, I also think the breastfeeding holds I used with my own babies past the newborn months were a little more physically demanding for them sometimes than the arm cradle, bottlefeeding cuddle that I use when caring for a ff infant. Think of all those acrobatic nursers!

[St. Margaret]

Well, any small sample group is going to be just that-- a limited range. BUT it is certainly true that babywearing has beneficial effects-- I think the studies are citing in The Baby Book but definitely in some old Mothering articles (love how they have such great citations!). And any babies subjected to CIO.. well, the studies on the detriments of that are numerous, too. Of course there are always going to be lots of exceptions (my DD was constantly held and all that, but wasn't into the typical milestones, but odd ones like butt scooting and book stuff rather than crawling, lol), but you may have just found two groups that really demonstrate the differences. Or it's coincidence.

[nerdymom]

Has anyone else had a similar experience, maybe with older kids? Perhaps it is just the nerdy researcher in me that is so intrigued by the contrast between the two groups.

[alfabetsoup]

Wow, I guess I must not be crunchy enough. My 11-month-old is neither pulling up nor crawling and my 3yo didn't walk until she was 19 months and is just now PLing.

Babies develop at different rates. If you think the parents in your mainstream group are good parents then rest assured they are doing the best they can to help their babies grow.

[annamama]

I think it's a fluke, because when I went to a very mainstream group, their babies were actually more advanced than my DS and some of his peers in the BF support group. People are people, and kids are kids - all growing at different rates.
I think that you can see benefits and drawbacks in anything, really.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by annamama

I think it's a fluke, because when I went to a very mainstream group, their babies were actually more advanced than my DS and some of his peers in the BF support group. People are people, and kids are kids - all growing at different rates.
I think that you can see benefits and drawbacks in anything, really.

Me too. My oldest was pretty advanced physically and verbally and seemed light years ahead of our AP group but not so far ahead of our Mommy and Me group. My youngest was pretty much average but with a speech delay and the more mainstream babies seemed a lot more mobile early on than those of our AP friends. I don't think it means mainstream parenting produces stronger kids, just that these particular kids happened to be both.

[purplemoon]

It is probably a fluke.

However, I have seen some parenting techniques that do seem to limit physical/emotional development, but they aren't just mainstream, they are borderline neglect. i.e kid never is out of the bucket EVER.

Babies really do develop at their own pace and as much as moms want to contribute to it, we don't. I wish my parenting technique was what got my 9 month old walking, but then I would have to say that my parenting technique was what caused his speech delay. LOL!

However, I do think that attachment parenting does leave the child more securely attached which can have emotional benefits. Everything else is just what happens.

What may be a correlation is that the higher IQ women tend to BF more and longer. So, what you may be seeing is above the curve women having babies who are above the curve.

[MtBikeLover]

I think it is just a fluke and even within families of children that are parented the same, there is different development. My oldest walked at 10 months, my youngest at 14 months. One crawled, one never did.

Originally Posted by Aubergine68

I also believe that babywearing can contribute to earlier development of core muscle control and balance in babies (depending a bit on the frequency of wearing and the carriers and the positions).

Of my very small sample of 3, my first child was worn more due to family dynamic and life situation at that time (we were carfree and the subway wasn't very stroller-accessible). She crawled/walked 4 mo earlier than her brothers.

We had the opposite happen. DS was hardly worn (I had never heard of slings so we just used the bjorn which was very uncomfortable) and he walked and crawled and did everything physical much earlier than my DD who practically lived in the sling for her first 6 months. He walked 4 months earlier than my DD.

[GISDiva]

By chance is the more mainstream group more WOHM parents then the non-mainstream group? As a WOHM myself, I've heard how plenty of day cares are run and many rely on keeping the child in one spot for extended periods of time. We are lucky in that we have a really great center available to us and that we can afford it, and even then I'm sure if I really saw how much babies are in swings and such I would probably not get out of bed tomorrow because of the guilt...:

Anyway, that might account for something, just a thought...

[mistymama]

I'd say it's a fluke. Ds sat, crawled and walked early. He started talking early, then lost his words and was speech delayed. He's now 6 and has been diagnosed with Aspergers. I think all babies develop differently and it has very little to do with parenting style.

[marybethorama]

I vote for fluke

[sapphire_chan]

Since bwing is even better than tummy time at doing the developmental stuff that tummy time is supposed to do, it makes sense. Your LO gets 4+ hours a day of "tummy time" the other babies in the non-babywearing group get like 20 minutes. And it's exacerbated by your LO being *happy* and wanting to learn while being carried.

My guess, is that if a proper study was done, causation would be found.

I suspect that if a baby who is worn ends up walking a bit later, they would've been even later if not worn. And a baby who isn't worn and walks early would've been even earlier if worn.

[greeny]

I also think it's probably just a fluke.

[GradysMom]

In a nutshell, yes to the OP - I've seen these stark differences too... and can't really stand mainstream when it comes to really young babies...

which is why everytime we move I'm walking around asking everyone in creation where the granolas... APers are.

[_betsy_]

Wow, I must be the Crunchiest Mama ever! DD is 5.5 months old, sitting up all by herself unassisted, getting to the sitting up position unassisted, and army crawling. She has been really determined to figure out crawling for like a month now, and is *so close.*

Oh, wait, that's not because I'm crunchy, it's because I'm lazy. Put her on the floor, who needs an activity center? Put her on the floor when I need to pee, make lunch, help the toddler, etc.

She does get a lot of sling time, but she HATES facing in, so she's always facing out - does that still count for "tummy time?"