[MarineWife]

I have read lots on these boards about the miracles this book delivers. I was always resistant to it because I don't like the idea of training a baby to sleep in any form or fashion. However, I finally decided that maybe I should actually read the book before I jump to any hasty conclusions. Well, I was not proved wrong after reading this book.

Although the author does provide gentle ways to get your baby to sleep longer, this is still sleep training. It still works on the premise that babies will not learn to sleep without being trained. The entire basis of the book is based on this erroneous assumption. I find this notion just plain silly because sleep is a physiological need. If people did not know how to sleep from the time they were born (probably even before that), we would not have survived as a species. The fact that the book basically only gives two scenarios for the parent of a baby as either CIO or being a "sleep-deprived martyr". There is no middle ground here for the many parents who can and do successfully and lovingly parent their babies at night without being desperately sleep-deprived. I am very dismayed that Dr. William Sears has written the forward to this book and stated just that without any mention of how breastfeeding and co-sleeping can eliminate this problem. I also find it interesting that the author explains in the chapter about the mechanics of sleep that babies need to follow the sleep patterns that they do in order to maximize development and survival and then she turns around and tries to show the reader how to change that. Why would any parent want to change something that baby needs for basic development and survival? That makes no sense. She even goes on to admit that children will eventually fall into a more adult like sleep pattern but asks if we, as parents, have the patience to wait for that. Isn't it our job to nurture our babies as babies and children as children and not try to force them to be little adults?

So, although the methods in this book may seem nicer than CIO, they are still methods of sleep training based on the idea that babies don't know how to sleep properly and I still don't like it.

 

[Rox5266]

Sorry that you did not like NCSS.

But some of us AP mommies need to find a middle ground between being so sleep deprived we can't function and gently teaching our frequently night-waking babies that they don't have to nurse back to sleep every 45 mins to an hour all night long. I love my ds and would never do anything to make him cry, but I need to be coherent when I go to work in the morning - I was almost fired for being passed out at my desk on day after a particularly bad night. I found NCSS helped me reduce the night-wakings to a more manageable level - and he never cried once!

Roxanne
Daniel 8/9/03

 

[dianna11]

I believe she does cover the "middle ground" when she asks the reader to ask themselves if they really want things to change. Some moms love getting up and having quiet time with the baby without having to tend to other children/partners. She also mentions that if you are happy with the way things are, then you likely wouldn't be reading the book.
She is likely assuming that people who would want to read NCSS are seeking tips on helping their children to sleep better, which I assume is a safe assumption - therefore may be feeling a tad sleep deprived and likely it has been suggested to them to CIO.

The book isn't necessarily written for middle ground dwellers. While agree that sleep is a physiological need, tips on how to help your baby to sleep better isn't necessarily *training*. Eating is also a physiological need, but we need tips on how to get the best nutrition and balance, otherwise our energy and health will be off balance too. NCSS is not at all "do it or else", from what I gathered from it, it was very much "do what works best for your family, here are a few ideas:". From my experience as well as many, MANY others on this board, breastfeeding and cosleeping do not eliminate these problems.

Just my $0.02

 

[MarineWife]

Yes, the author ask the reader to think about whether or not they really want things to change, if the parent perceives a problem. If the parent does perceive a problem, this is a problem with the parent, not with the baby. Feeling that you need to train your baby to sleep at night because you need to be better rested for work is a lifestyle choice. I am glad that there is a softer, more gentle technique available for parents who feel they need it. All I'm saying is let's not sugarcoat this and try to make it something it is not. It is another technique to train baby to behave a certain way in order to make the parents life easier. It is not something that is needed for the baby's well-being.

 

[dianna11]

By the same definition, would teaching a baby to talk, potty learn, dress themselves, feed themselves also be "training to make the parents life easier"? If so, I guess you're right!

Also, it isn't just parents who need to work who need sleep. I'm sure there are many SAHP hout there who can be effective parents on 3 hours of sleep, but most would want more given the oportunity. I don't know about your children, but most people find that their children are happier and healthier when they get a better nights sleep too.

 

[Julesy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarineWife I am very dismayed that Dr. William Sears has written the forward to this book and stated just that without any mention of how breastfeeding and co-sleeping can eliminate this problem.

I definitely agree with much of what you're saying - NCSS is certainly just a gentler form of sleep training. While the idea of sleep training upsets me, as well, I agree with the pp's that this book provides a valuable service to those of us who are against any form of CIO but are still extremely sleep-deprived. Unfortunately, breastfeeding and co-sleeping are no guarantee of a decent night's sleep. I have done both since the birth of my almost 12-month-old daughter, and I'm VERY sleep-deprived at this point! She still wakes every 1-2 hours to nurse, and I'm not one who can sleep through feedings. I haven't yet gone the NCSS route, but I appreciate that the option is available, as I will take it as soon as I feel that my sleep-deprivation is interfering with my ability to "daytime-parent!" JMO ...

 

[clothcrazymom]

I agree with the OP. I'm glad to see someone speak out against the book too. A few years back there were some mama's who were very vocal about this issue (who seem to not be around any longer) and were very upset with Dr. Sears' endorsement of the book.

My issue with the book is that I think it's another example of people not trusting a child's natural abilities. Children WILL sleep through the night when they are developmentally ready.

I think all parents have had times when things have gotten out of balance and they have been sleep-deprived. I think there are other options that parents need to look to. Some options might be:

- Sleep/rest with the baby during the day.
- Enlist the help of others so you are able to rest.
- Slow your life down some - take a look and see if maybe things have become out of sorts and too busy.
- Take a step back and re-prioritize
- Remember that this is a VERY short time in life. I realize that when our children are 12 months (or whatever age) and we are struggling with something it seems that it's forever. But believe me it all passes very quickly.
- Parenting is tough! If anyone ever gave us the idea that it was going to be a breeze - they were wrong!

I think it's fine to get a child back to sleep in other ways than nursing. It's very simple to see if this will work. The child will quickly let you know. And if it's not working then maybe the best thing to do is to wait a bit and try again at a later time.

I take issue with the idea that because the parents are having problems with something then it becomes the child's problem.

And sorry but I think it's very NORMAL and NATURAL for babies/toddlers to wake at night. It is about ages and stages. Things will shift in a natural manner when it's a natural time for a child to sleep longer periods of time. Until then, maybe the best idea is for the parent to take a look at the way they are approaching the situation, thinking about things, and maybe they need to shift the way they are dealing with things.

I know when I say all this there will be those that will quickly say how they "have to" this or that. Ok fine - then maybe you need to look at other options. Nothing is about "have to" it's all about choices. We all make choices as to how we set up our lives. And I'm not saying that it's all one way or the other....it's not...there are always options. Sometimes we just need to get a bit more creative about what we choose to do.

And yes I do believe that so much is about the way that we choose to think about things or speak about things.

 

[MarineWife]

What clothcrazymom said. You said it so much better than I could.

As far as the other stuff like eating and using the toilet and talking, I don't see these as things that need to be taught in the traditional sense either. Children will learn how to do these things are their own through the daily living and interaction with their attentive parents, other family members and caregivers. I did not teach my child to feed himself. I put food in front of him and he picked it up and put it in his mouth. I gave him a utensil but I did not put it in his hand, show him how to hold it and move it toward his mouth. He did all that on his own from watching us. My toddler is not old enough to use the toilet yet but my older son is (he's 14 years old). I didn't potty train him at all. When he was ready, he watched what the other males in his life did and then just did it. I certainly don't teach my children how to talk either. They learn that, again, on their own. I don't sit down and drill words with them and try to make them repeat what I say. I could even go so far as to say that I don't need to teach my children how to dress themselves either. My little guy has been putting his own arms through his shirtsleeves since he was about 4 months old. I didn't do anything to prompt this. He just started doing it. He also tries to figure out how to put his own diaper, shoes and pants on and take them off. I don't have to teach him.

The methods used in NCSS are mostly common sense things that I think most parents do naturally and maybe without even realizing it when they intuitively know that their children are ready, like trying to comfort the 1yo by patting him on the back rather than immediately nursing him or trying to make evenings calm and quiet and conducive to restfullness or following a nightime routine of eating dinner, taking a bath, reading a book (or 10) and then going to bed. The problem with NCSS is that it approaches it from the standpoint that the baby needs to be taught to sleep, and that is just preposterous. People sleep because their bodies have a physical need. They don't need to think about it. They just do it. Stealing words from a very wise friend, AP is about trusting that your baby and children know what they need when they need and that they will grow and develop naturally without the need for prompting or training or teaching from others. If we fall into the trap of thinking we need to sleep train our babies because we are tired, we have lost trust in our babies, and that is sad.

 

[AugustineM]

I read NCSS (well, skimmed it) out of curiousity and agree with what you said, MarineWife, about lots of it seeming common-sense. Most of the things I already do.

One quick thing: books are written to SELL. American moms (and some dads) are hungry for "solutions" to their baby's sleep "problems." So Pantley and her editors and publicists wrote the book to make it easy to implement, with simple steps and specific techniques. A book that was written that said, "Your baby will sleep better eventually, even if you do nothing" wouldn't sell very well, even if that's what Pantley herself might think...

Sort of OT but it's interesting to think of it that way.

 

[MarineWife]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AugustineM A book that was written that said, "Your baby will sleep better eventually, even if you do nothing" wouldn't sell very well, even if that's what Pantley herself might think... Sort of OT but it's interesting to think of it that way.

Selling books is all well and good but it still doesn't change what it is. The author says very clearly that it's about sleep training based on the assumption that parents are sleep-deprived because baby has a sleep problem. I don't think that sort of thing really falls within the general thinking of AP. I just really question the touting of a book like that as a panacea on an AP message board.

 

[Rox5266]

Clothcrazymom, I can't sleep/nap with my ds, I work full time out of the home and must do so to support my family. All you said makes sense, and I agree that if I were a SAHM I would be doing things differently and not want to "sleep train" my ds. I don't really look at it as sleep training, since I never was too gung-ho into it (too tired to do the whole thing according to the book) but I used her ideas, like the Pantely Pull-Off to help my ds and I both sleep better. As the pp said, if you don't feel you need to change anything, you probably should have saved some $ and not bought the book or taken it out of the library to begin with. But not all Moms who are AP are SAHMs, we are single Moms or WOHM and have no choice but to work and be functional in the morning at our jobs. If I were to make a mistake at my job due to brain fog from sleep deprivation I could cost my clients, my firm and myself a lot of money - as well as get fired and be sued! I am glad some women have the luxury to be at home 24/7 and compensate for sleep deprivation in other ways (and no "sleep training"). I wish I could be that way, but I can't.

And I guess I don't really look at it as sleep training. It is a guide to get your baby to sleep in a way that is acceptable for both of you. A compromise, so to say. At least that is the way I see it.

Roxanne
Daniel 8/9/03

 

[nannymom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarineWife Yes, the author ask the reader to think about whether or not they really want things to change, if the parent perceives a problem. If the parent does perceive a problem, this is a problem with the parent, not with the baby. Feeling that you need to train your baby to sleep at night because you need to be better rested for work is a lifestyle choice. I am glad that there is a softer, more gentle technique available for parents who feel they need it. All I'm saying is let's not sugarcoat this and try to make it something it is not. It is another technique to train baby to behave a certain way in order to make the parents life easier. It is not something that is needed for the baby's well-being.

I'm sorry but it isn't right to say that feeling you need to be well rested for work is a lifestyle choice. Some people have to work and some people can not function or perform there jobs well or safely on little or no sleep. I work part time as a nanny and I bring my daughter to work- I HAVE to work it's not a choice we won't have a house or food if i don't. I also have suffered with ppd since the birth of my daughter. When we sleep poorly it makes my depression harder to manage and it makes it diffucult for me to safely perform my job (i.e, drive someone elses children around) and frankly makes me a worse parent. I would never let my baby cry it out, I would never leave her alone in a room so I could sleep, but having a gentle option to guide us both to a better nights rest has been a necessity. Not every mother has the ability to rest when baby rests during the day or has the help of someone else to make sure they get a rest. No one here wants babies to cry it out but some people have to help there babies to sleep. I am really just so offended that you would call this a lifestyle choice-it's just thoughtless. Furthermore, babies do need to sleep a certain amount in order to grow and be healthy and some babeis need more help with this than others.

 

[jadzia's_mommy]

I find this thread really interesting. I like this book a lot, and I'm not sure I understand the beef with it. If you are in the "middle ground" and are not sleep deprived, then you're not really the person this book was written for. There is nothing about the book that sets up any hard & fast rules. Pantly is pretty clear that at any time you can go back to what you usually do to help baby sleep. This isn't really needed for people whose babies wake a couple times at night, it's for people whose babies are waking up 8, 9, 10, 12 times a night. At least that is my understanding. Certainly, a lot of it is common sense, and some of the things I read in the book were things I was doing anyway. But, I'll tell ya, Jadzia is my first child and I knew zip about babies before she came along. I'd never so much as changed a diaper much less tried to get a baby to sleep. Some of the suggestions were quite helpful for me, and some of it I've never used at all.

I guess there is some element to it that amounts to "sleep training," in the sense that you are actively taking steps to encourage baby to sleep better. But by that definition, pretty much anything you do to interact with your baby at night amounts to sleep training. I mean, if you nurse your baby to sleep every day they might think nursing = sleep. If you rock them to sleep, they may think rocking = sleep. We all engage in activities with our babies at bedtime that imprint some sleep habits on them. This book really just offers suggestions for what sorts of activities are useful in helping baby to sleep. What is so wrong with that?

I don't see this book as offering the easy way out, either, or that it suggests parenting is supposed to be a breeze. The tips in the book are all pretty time consuming and she is pretty frank that it takes awhile to see results with her methods.

I also disagree that she tells parents to change sleep patterns that are necessary for development and survival. In fact, Pantly states pretty clearly in the newborn (0-4 mo.) section that it is normal for babies of that age to wake at night for food and comfort, and that parents should be realistic about that. That isn't even really the goal of the newborn section of the book.

 

[MarineWife]

The beef with the book is that, although it may say that what baby is doing is normal, blah, blah, blah, when it comes to addressing the parents sleep deprivation problems, it is the baby who is said to have sleep problems and it is the baby that needs to be changed. True sleep problems, especially in babies, are rare. It is the parents who have sleep problems because the new baby isn't fitting into the parents life. Although I do understand that there are situations where both parents or a single parent must work, I think a lot of times there are many ways to work things out so that mom (or dad as the case may be) does not have to work, at least during baby's first year. Now, if you want to keep your nice house and your new car and your closet full of bought new clothes and in order to do so, you have to work, that's a lifestyle choice.

 

[Mrs Otago]

The beef with the book is that, although it may say that what baby is doing is normal, blah, blah, blah, when it comes to addressing the parents sleep deprivation problems, it is the baby who is said to have sleep problems and it is the baby that needs to be changed.

I have to say that I am surprised to see an element that opposes the NCSS. But then, I have just had a series of run ins with people that are surprised about my stance on CIO, so I guess it takes all sorts, huh?

Anyway, having read and used the first NCSS and having been a "Test Mommy" for Pantley's latest book, NCSS for Toddlers and Preschoolers, the general gist I got wasn't that the baby had a "sleep problem" but that what is biologically normal for a baby didn't necessarily fit into our 21st century modern life, and that NCSS is presented as a compromise.

Personally, I am GLAD Dr Sears endorsed this book, as it helps him move away from his reputation as encouraging all mothers to become martyrs to their child's needs.

I used NCSS with my eldest son at 16 months, but I currently have a 22mo who is not sleeping through, is a frequent night nursing, and is not ready to give any of that up. I think its a case of reading the child, and seeing what they are capable of. I doubt anyone using NCSS would be pushing a child to do something they aren't able to do, and if they felt things weren't working in their CHILD'S best interests, I am sure they would stop.

Anyway, JMTCW...

 

[zinemama]

This is an interesting take on NCSS. The book didn't work for us, but it never occurred to me that any of the techniques therein (not that there were many - you had to wade through an awful lot before getting to the "solution" which took up all of three pages) could possibly be considered harmful or wrong by anyone on these boards.

And I have to say that based on my own experience and what I've read here, I think Pantley's take on things is dead right: either you do cio or something similar, or you put up with the all-night waking and are a wreck as a consequence. That's certainly been the experience of every ap parent I know. I was not about to cio, I co-slept and bf, but when my 18mo was still waking up 8-10 times per night and I had an active 4yo to take care of during the day as well, I would say that there was a problem.

You can call it my problem if you want, but when my sleep-deprivation affected the way I was able to function as a parent, it became the kids' problem, as well. I was able to be grumpy in my bathrobe as opposed to endangering other drivers on the freeway, but other than that, I fail to see how being a sahm really made my situation any easier than that of a wohm. With my 4yo on the go, I sure as hell couldn't "nap when the baby napped."

By the time I picked up NCSS, I was desperate to teach my toddler to sleep. One or two wakings a night would have been heaven! So, yes, I definitely tried to train him, using Pantley's methods (most of which it turned out I was already doing). Didn't work, so I just sucked it up and endured. Nights were hellish and I was, too.

I don't have a problem with anything Pantley advocated. The problem was that it didn't work.

 

[nannymom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarineWife The beef with the book is that, although it may say that what baby is doing is normal, blah, blah, blah, when it comes to addressing the parents sleep deprivation problems, it is the baby who is said to have sleep problems and it is the baby that needs to be changed. True sleep problems, especially in babies, are rare. It is the parents who have sleep problems because the new baby isn't fitting into the parents life. Although I do understand that there are situations where both parents or a single parent must work, I think a lot of times there are many ways to work things out so that mom (or dad as the case may be) does not have to work, at least during baby's first year. Now, if you want to keep your nice house and your new car and your closet full of bought new clothes and in order to do so, you have to work, that's a lifestyle choice.

It was still wrong and insulting of you to make such an unfair generilization. And you know what sometimes no matter how hard you try you aren't privilaged enough not to have to work and sometimes you have to do what's right by your baby and if your baby isn't getting enough sleep that is your babies problem.Maybe you have never been around a baby who doesn't get enough sleep, but I have and they aren't happy and they aren't free to feel good.

 

[AugustineM]

You can call it my problem if you want, but when my sleep-deprivation affected the way I was able to function as a parent, it became the kids' problem, as well.

Absolutely true. My midwives call us motherbabies... when one is having a problem, both are having a problem. I don't think that anyone would say that nightwaking is a baby's "fault," of course not, but if there is a problem (say, sleep deprivation), both parties are going to be feeling ill effects from that.

 

[OakBerry]

I found NCSS to be exactly what I was looking for, a middle ground between all the parenting style sleep books I'd looked at.
I didn't want to let my baby CIO, I knew that for sure. No Ferber. But I didn't want to be up nursing a toddler every 2 hours all night long either. My child would not sleep without my nipple in his mouth the entire time. I found her tips (although common sense) very effective and ds actually started napping after I employed some of the suggestions. And he is a pretty good sleeper at now as well, wakes up once a night, sometimes sleeps through. Worked for me!

 

[Yo Becca]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarineWife It is the parents who have sleep problems because the new baby isn't fitting into the parents life. Although I do understand that there are situations where both parents or a single parent must work, I think a lot of times there are many ways to work things out so that mom (or dad as the case may be) does not have to work, at least during baby's first year. Now, if you want to keep your nice house and your new car and your closet full of bought new clothes and in order to do so, you have to work, that's a lifestyle choice.

WOw. You clearly speak from the perspective of having the priviledge to stay home. Please don't assue that you can speak for or about any other perspective. This is incredibly judgemental and disrespectful to women who work outside the home, whatever the reason. Women have many talents and responsibilities, including and beyond raising children.

I just checked this book out from the library and haven't read it yet. But my general perspective on so-called "sleep training" and other such measures is that all members of my family have needs and wants, and we have to figure out how we can balance them in a way that benefits us as individuals and a family. I am sacrificing my career in order to stay home most of the time w/ my DD b/c I want to be with her as much as possible. We are making lots of changes in our life in order to create a postive environment for her and to build attachments with her. My husband and I have gained so much joy and love for her presence in our lives, and we have also given up lots that we once enjoyed. As she gets older, she is increasingly going to be asked to make sacrifices - giving up what she may want - like to rip out the cat's hair, chew on used butt wipes, climb up the stiars by herself, bite and hit us, only eat marshmallows, etc. - for what is best for all members of the family (including what is best for her).

"Training" her - in a way that is gentle, peaceful and causes her no harm or loss - to sleep through the night so that my DH and I can be more sane to face all the obligations in our life (even if that were my main reason, which it isn't), in my opinion, is reasonable. SHe is not harmed, we as a family are helped. I prioritize my child, her health, and her happiness, but MY health and happness are also worthwhile. (I guess DH's are also)

If I didn't perceive any detrimental effects of constantly disturbed sleep, then I wouldn't bother trying to change the situation. I guess I just don't see training her - again, in a gentle, non-harmful way - as inherently negative. I plan to "train" her to do lot of things - all part of the process of rearing a responsible member of our family and society.

What exactly is the benefit of her waking up throughout the night? Every time she wakes, she fusses until, if I can't immediately put a boob in her mouth, she rouses to the point of crying. It seems more distruptive to her than it is to me. It's actually better than it used to be - she used to scream like she was being pinched through every middle-of-the-night diaper change. Will she be damaged by instead having longer periods of sleeping and , therefore, fewer inidents of fussing and crying? Is my "training" not actually going to help her rest better and cry less?

In truth, I could keep going with her multiple wakings - I've adapted to less sleep. But she's not waking up and giggling, she's waking up and crying, and I want her to have more peaceful nights.