or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Life With a Baby › Television for a 3 month old?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Television for a 3 month old? - Page 2

post #21 of 70
LolaK-

I'd love that link if you ever find it!
post #22 of 70
Quote:
LolaK-

I'd love that link if you ever find it!
I'm not LolaK, but I've posted these on another thread.

1) Harvard University Professor T. Berry Brazelton hooked newborn babies up to electroencephalographs and then exposed them to a flickering light source similar to a television but with no images. Fifteen minutes into their exposure, the babies stopped crying and produced sleep patterns on the EEG, even though their eyes were still open and observing the light. Brazelton's experiment revealed that the medium itself, with no content, acts directly on the brain to suppress mental activity. The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry confirmed Brazelton's finding in 1982. They reported that the brain waves generated while watching even the most exciting shows were those of low attention states. The researchers found that while subjects viewed television, "output of alpha rhythms increased, indicating they were in a passive state, as if they were just sitting in the dark." http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/tvkelemen.htm

2) Young children who watch television face an increased risk of attention-deficit problems by school age, a study has found, suggesting that television might overstimulate and permanently 'rewire' the developing brain. For every hour of television watched daily, two groups of children - ages 1 and 3 - faced a 10 percent increased risk of having attention problems at age 7. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/tvkelemen.htm

3) And in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that parents should not expose children under the age of 2 to any type of screen media.

More research:

http://www.zerotothree.org/vol22-2a.pdf

http://www.tvturnoff.org/research.htm
post #23 of 70
Does your TV have closed captioning? With the noise off the baby wouldn't get distracted from nursing. I did that a lot when my first was tiny.

NPR is a good idea too or reading.
post #24 of 70
we don't own a tv, so to everyone who feels that there is 'nothing else to do' and the two options are either watching tv all day or 'staring at the walls', i can tell you that there is a whole world of other things you can do.

i look at the internet while nursing, read books, listen to npr, write for her blog or in her baby book, listen to audiobooks from www.audible.com, and when she was really young and small i could do some scrapbooking with her on my lap. now she is bigger, that's a little harder.

she doesn't nurse ALL THE TIME and in the other time we have we go for walks, i read to her, take pictures of her, fix and eat my meals, maybe some light tidying, and we EC so of course i toilet her frequently and that takes time. sometimes i put her on my back in the mei tai and we do some light yardwork, or we run errands like going to the grocery store or library. i am also active at city hall in our town so there are a couple of meetings each week that she accompanies me to, and we started a mom's group that meets at a local cafe.

i would suggest to anyone with kids that they donate their tv to the local dump and start finding other ways to amuse themselves. really, what is going to happen to you if you don't get to watch 'Lost' or Dr. Phil? After a while you will realize that you were missing WAY more of life by watching tv all the time than you are now that you don't have tv at all.

just my 2 cents.
post #25 of 70
Sorry my "stare at the walls" comment struck you wrong, but most days that is all I would be able to do with no TV on. I can't read or write or surf the internet, because all of those activities require me to be in a physical position that makes my daughter upset. She doesn't nurse regularly (I Ep for her and offer her the breast all the time), and she is very particular about how I sit and feed her. Also, she must be held in a certain position to relax or nap at all most of the time. Basically, we live on the couch much of the day. I have tried music, but mostly it just makes me want to go to sleep (which is a bad plan for a sleep-deprived mom trying to stay awake to take care of her baby). I don't have a radio to listen to either (cd's only). When she is awake and not feeding, we sit and sing away from the TV, read, play silly faces with each other - whatever she wants, but those few hours a day where I have to hold her on the couch, I do watch TV.

I guess truthfully too, I grew up a TV junkie.... and yet, I have always been an avid reader (and still am), graduated salutatorian of my high school class, have advanced degrees in polymer science,and generally feel fairly intellectually well-developed. I don't wish to allow my daughter to be a TV potato, yet my habits are so firmly ingrained that they will need to be changed before she learns from my example. However, I am still at a loss for what to do those few hours a day where I am stuck in my little "nursing station" on the couch. She will outgrow it soon, so it will be a moot point, perhaps?

I do try to get out of the house at least two days per week to visit other moms, so we can sit and talk and visit the day away, which eliminates TV on those days.
post #26 of 70
Here's my $.02: I guess I'm weighing in with the "whatever gets her through the day" camp. For those who eschew TV, that's great...for you. But you never know how other peoples' lives, and babies, compare to your own, so it's a bit harsh to assume that your way is the best for everyone. In the early weeks, I think it's a rare mom who has enough energy to read or use the computer during ALL the nursing times. TV is a great companion for exhausted moms at 2 am (and 2 pm, for that matter). Past a certain point, I think with my DD it was about 6 months old, it was impossible to use the computer or read while nursing, she was too distracted by trying to grab at them. But TV she'd largely ignore. So it truly was TV, radio, or stare at the wall for us.

I think TV isn't great if it's too much, but I really don't get worked up when I see DS craning his little head around to stare at the glowing screen. After a few minutes I turn it off so he doesn't watch too much, but I truly don't think my boring, slow-moving cooking or talk shows are ruining his brain forever. In all honesty, I find the spastic light-up, flashing, sound-making toys that are so popular to be a lot more disturbing than a little TV.

Carol
post #27 of 70

Hope to break it to you all, but...

DirectTV offers a 24/7, commercial free channel SPECIFICALLY for infants and toddlers UNDER 3 years old!

Check it out: http://directtv.com/DTVAPP/packages/BabyFirstTV.jsp

My child is 17 years old and has been exposed to plenty of t.v., even in his early years, but even I was shocked to see a channel designed especially for babies.
post #28 of 70
Ugh, I have seen reference to that before. I think it is pretty terrible, especially since people will think "it doesn't have commercials so there is no harm in my BABY watching it."
post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllasMama

I think TV isn't great if it's too much, but I really don't get worked up when I see DS craning his little head around to stare at the glowing screen. After a few minutes I turn it off so he doesn't watch too much, but I truly don't think my boring, slow-moving cooking or talk shows are ruining his brain forever. In all honesty, I find the spastic light-up, flashing, sound-making toys that are so popular to be a lot more disturbing than a little TV.

Carol
I'm sorry but did you actually read this previous post? The whole point is that it doesn't matter what kind of show is on the TV, it doesn't have to be some crazy kid show.

"1) Harvard University Professor T. Berry Brazelton hooked newborn babies up to electroencephalographs and then exposed them to a flickering light source similar to a television but with no images. Fifteen minutes into their exposure, the babies stopped crying and produced sleep patterns on the EEG, even though their eyes were still open and observing the light. Brazelton's experiment revealed that the medium itself, with no content, acts directly on the brain to suppress mental activity. The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry confirmed Brazelton's finding in 1982. They reported that the brain waves generated while watching even the most exciting shows were those of low attention states. The researchers found that while subjects viewed television, "output of alpha rhythms increased, indicating they were in a passive state, as if they were just sitting in the dark." http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/tvkelemen.htm"
post #30 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllasMama
Here's my $.02: I guess I'm weighing in with the "whatever gets her through the day" camp. For those who eschew TV, that's great...for you. But you never know how other peoples' lives, and babies, compare to your own, so it's a bit harsh to assume that your way is the best for everyone. In the early weeks, I think it's a rare mom who has enough energy to read or use the computer during ALL the nursing times. TV is a great companion for exhausted moms at 2 am (and 2 pm, for that matter). Past a certain point, I think with my DD it was about 6 months old, it was impossible to use the computer or read while nursing, she was too distracted by trying to grab at them. But TV she'd largely ignore. So it truly was TV, radio, or stare at the wall for us.

I think TV isn't great if it's too much, but I really don't get worked up when I see DS craning his little head around to stare at the glowing screen. After a few minutes I turn it off so he doesn't watch too much, but I truly don't think my boring, slow-moving cooking or talk shows are ruining his brain forever. In all honesty, I find the spastic light-up, flashing, sound-making toys that are so popular to be a lot more disturbing than a little TV.

Carol
:

Studies are great, but are subject to interpretation and critique. Common sense is one of my best friends.
post #31 of 70
I'm so shocked at the "all or nothing" attitudes around here. Either you don't own a TV or you're rotting your kids brains out. What ever happen to moderation??

I watch TV. My daughter is 12 weeks old, and she is allowed in the same room as a TV. I do not believe in allowing a TV to become a pseudo babysitter for children, of any age, but I don't subscribe to the "TV will rot your brain cells" theory.

The key is moderation, so to have a TV on as background noise, or as low level "entertainment" to get you through the sometimes tedious task of non-stop nursing, I'm all for it.

I just got done nursing DD to sleep while watching "So You Think You Can Dance". Do you think it would help if I made us tin foil helmets?
post #32 of 70
I don't think that TV is the root of ALL evils, just the root of MANY evils.



But to each his own, the OP asked for our opinions so I gave it. I also think that when my daughter is old enough to moderate herself, she is welcome to occasionally watch TV. I think that is a whole different thing from infants watching TV.
post #33 of 70
I hate tv. However, I watched a TON when I was on mat leave because I was too physically tired and mentally drained to do anything else.

While my baby was fairly alert by 6 weeks, she still wasn't going to look at anything but the boob when she was nursing. Around 3-4 months, she started to look at the tv so I stopped watching while nursing.

Yeah, sure, one poster said you can scrapbook or take pics. You can if you feel well enough. When I'd just had a baby, I could barely get out of bed so it was nice to have the distraction to take my mind off the pain. I also spent a lot of time looking out the window.

Once I got better, I could do more while nursing such as knit, read, eat lunch, vacuum, and chat on the phone.
post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by LolaK
I'm sorry but did you actually read this previous post? The whole point is that it doesn't matter what kind of show is on the TV, it doesn't have to be some crazy kid show.
Yes, I read it. Despite TV, even modest amounts as a baby and child, I can still read! I appreciate what I assume to be your genuine concern, but not everyone feels the same way that you do. I balance the various members of my family's lives in the best way I can manage, unapologetically. As each of us is free to do.

Carol
post #35 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllasMama
Yes, I read it. Despite TV, even modest amounts as a baby and child, I can still read! I appreciate what I assume to be your genuine concern, but not everyone feels the same way that you do. I balance the various members of my family's lives in the best way I can manage, unapologetically. As each of us is free to do.

Carol
: Thank you for wording that so well!
post #36 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaywyn

Studies are great, but are subject to interpretation and critique. Common sense is one of my best friends.
This made me chuckle in a good way.

As far as tv, I know in the early weeks and mos with my dd, I had no energy to read or do anything while establishing my nursing relationship but watch tv. I remember I had all sorts of magazines and books and really my brain was fried , even NPR was a bit too heavy for me. It was like let's just watch junky tv. Now at 10 mos, not too much time for tv, hell even getting online when she is awake is getting harder and harder.

Shay
post #37 of 70
I only posted the links to the research on the effects of tv on the infant brain because someone asked for it. I mentioned in another post that while I come from a non-tv family, I caved during those long tough early months of constant nursing and rocking, nursing and rocking.

I find it really interesting though that the latest research is valued so highly on these forums--vaccinations, breastfeeding, circumcision, homebirth, etc. But, mention the research on the damaging effects of tv and most people don't want to hear it or start to argue that research is open to interpretation. I guess science is valuable only as long as it fits our worldview.
post #38 of 70
I don't discount the research, but I also don't think the typical newborn is looking at anything but the boob, so I find the research irrelevant.

My son was a 37-weeker, sleepy, jaundiced, poor nurser, who had to be woken every 2-3 hours his first few weeks and encouraged to nurse. I got about an hour of sleep at a time, for maybe a total of 5 hours a day, for those first few weeks. Between my completely numb left arm (carpal tunnel) and my son's poor latch, nursing in bed was sooo not happening. I had to get up and sit in a chair to nurse, even in the middle of the night. "Fried" is an understatement. At least watching Punk'd gave me some laughs during a very difficult time, and kept me awake enough that I didn't drop the baby.

Personally I think there is a world of difference between nursing while watching some TV, versus putting the baby in a bouncy seat facing the screen. It seems like people who are bringing up the research are assuming the latter when it seems like others defending TV are describing the former.
post #39 of 70
I thought the OP was saying that the baby was actually watching TV with the mommy, not that the mommy was watching during nursing. As far as I'm concerned mommies can do anything they want while nursing. But if the baby is staring at the screen that's another thing. I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue because I recently started another thread with the confession that my baby actually WATCHED an episode of Buffy with me. But I felt bad about that, and here's why. When DD is watching the screen, she is glazed and blank. She is not doing what babies do to grow and learn - i.e. interact with people and the world around her.

I note that the baby in the OP is three months old. I'm wondering if the mommy in this case is watching TV with the baby because there doesn't seem to be anything else to do with a baby that age. It's true that it can be hard to fill up the time, but it's worth finding alternatives to TV. When DD was that age I kept a running list in my head so I'd always have something: read to her, play under the sheets on the bed, baby massage, bath, dance to music, sing, look at pictures on the walls, take walks, make faces, did exercises with her on my tummy, etc.

Again, there is a difference between a nursing baby who has TV in the background and a baby who is facing the TV. There is also a difference between expecting your infant to watch TV regularly, and the occasional slip or moment of necessity in order to get through the day. However, I prefer to approach TV with an attitude of "none is best" than "moderation is best." I see "moderation" as a philosophy for things that are genuinely good if the baby has some. But for things that are probably harmful, I'm not sure the concept applies. Everyone has to assess for themselves what falls into that category, I guess. For me it's TV, probably partly because I was raised in a no-TV family and that's something I have always been deeply grateful to my parents for.
post #40 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrklynMama
I thought the OP was saying that the baby was actually watching TV with the mommy, not that the mommy was watching during nursing. As far as I'm concerned mommies can do anything they want while nursing. But if the baby is staring at the screen that's another thing. I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue because I recently started another thread with the confession that my baby actually WATCHED an episode of Buffy with me. But I felt bad about that, and here's why. When DD is watching the screen, she is glazed and blank. She is not doing what babies do to grow and learn - i.e. interact with people and the world around her.

I note that the baby in the OP is three months old. I'm wondering if the mommy in this case is watching TV with the baby because there doesn't seem to be anything else to do with a baby that age. It's true that it can be hard to fill up the time, but it's worth finding alternatives to TV. When DD was that age I kept a running list in my head so I'd always have something: read to her, play under the sheets on the bed, baby massage, bath, dance to music, sing, look at pictures on the walls, take walks, make faces, did exercises with her on my tummy, etc.

Again, there is a difference between a nursing baby who has TV in the background and a baby who is facing the TV. There is also a difference between expecting your infant to watch TV regularly, and the occasional slip or moment of necessity in order to get through the day. However, I prefer to approach TV with an attitude of "none is best" than "moderation is best." I see "moderation" as a philosophy for things that are genuinely good if the baby has some. But for things that are probably harmful, I'm not sure the concept applies. Everyone has to assess for themselves what falls into that category, I guess. For me it's TV, probably partly because I was raised in a no-TV family and that's something I have always been deeply grateful to my parents for.
Very well said. I too was raised in a no-TV family and I think it's one of the best things my parents have done for me and my sister. I also spent the first 8-10 weeks of DS's life watching DVD's on my laptop and going on MDC when he was literally spending ALL of his life either nursing or napping--he was not watching at all. I had the DVD's on subtitles and no volume, so there was no constant background noise.

There IS a big difference to using TV as your way to get through the first few weeks of your-baby-will-never-let-you-off-the-couch and to actually let your kid see the screen and get entertained by it. And frankly, to the PP who was so shocked by the "no-TV" attitudes, this is a natural parenting website. You don't have to agree with it or follow it, but avoiding TV for babies (and older kids and even for the whole family) is definitely part of what many people believe is NFL. Shouldn't be so shocking. :
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Life With a Baby
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Life With a Baby › Television for a 3 month old?