controlled crying

[mrs v]

Hi ladies
I hadn't replied as Im no expert on CC I just have my own views and experience. However I have listed a couple of my understandings below and I hope that Leesey will be able to come and provide some more information and indeed tell me if any of the below isn't correct!

- I understand that if a child is crying in a car / in your arms etc this isn't considered controlled crying as you are there with them and can offer support and comfort.
- CC is where a baby is left alone to cry with no comfort for increasing periods until they fall asleep.
- you don't need to necessarily pick the baby up to offer comfort when they cry, my LO wasn't always a fan of being taken out of her cot and preferred me to pat and shoosh her while she lay in the cot.
- Even advocates of CC don't recommend it for babies under 6 months and many are now saying 1 year
- One of my personal concerns is the fact that it's not a one off fix and for many parents they need to repeat the practice when a baby goes through a leap or sleep regression.

As many of the posts have said this is a very emotive subject and I find people tend to feel very strongly either way but I do echo the concerns of Leesey and from a personal experience my little girl learnt to self settle in her own time without any form on sleep training (not to say it was easy!) and I do believe that all babies can do this some just take longer than others.

I totally see what you are saying, but don't we as parents 'teach' our children? I am very lucky as lo was left for literally half hour and I'm not saying I would have continued with the technique if he would have cried for hours, but clearly it has worked for us. Again I am in no way advocating cc, however in my case little intervention has worked.

I think people are really interested to see the evidence so that they can make the decision themselves, I.e. types of families technique, I wonder about levels of deprivation, age of children, how many.

Appreciate your thoughts on the subject, as always its great to hear different opinions x

 

[BeeRobinson]

I completely agree with people seeing evidence and making their own minds up, sleep training is such a personal choice that it's important to be as informed as possible. In terms of teaching babies to sleep I think thats the impossible issue of how we individually parent our children. Personally I feel I support my LO and allow her to work the whole sleeping thing out for herself but that certainly might not be the right choice for everyone. I also only have one child atm and can appreciate that those choices may change with a larger family.

I'm really pleased things have worked out for your little boy and personally I think this has been a really interesting discussion.

 

[Emamay]

It's a long one folks... I'm sorry...

Just some musings of my own.

1) When anyone posts on a public forum, they open themselves to people's opinion. Conversation does not follow a defined course, one thing that someone says can trigger a totally random thought in another. Whether the original question was "how" or "should I" I feel is somewhat irrelevant. If I were to ask "how" I should get my baby to like the taste of vodka, I'm pretty sure most responses would be "you don't".

2) we're all mummies doing the best we can with the information we find. As an example - jumperoos are said to damage babies hips and legs, however, many people have one (including myself), and understand that moderation is the key.

3) I knew NOTHING about babies until I was about 5 months pregnant, by which time I'd learned a lot. Most of it from this site. The reason I learned as much as I did, was because instead of "webMD" telling me "this is what to do", I could get both sides of the story from varying opinions on this site, further research anything I wasn't sure on, and form my own plan.

4) All babies are different. What works for one won't work for another. If you as a mother feel that CC works for your baby, do it.
As long as you're comfortable that the pros outweigh the cons.

5) I've been extremely lucky with Cay. He's a very easy baby. We put him to bed as he's getting dopey, kiss him goodnight and leave him to it.
He goes to sleep within minutes.
Sometimes, he'll start shouting after a few minutes.
Initially, I'd be straight up the stairs to see what was going on.
Once I realised he was asleep and apparently shouting at nothing at all, I stopped going up.
Sometimes he'll shout, sometimes babble or coo, I leave him to it.
Sometimes, he'll start that wimpery cry, I'll go up and lay beside him. I won't touch him, or talk to him, or anything except lay there and look at him (his bed is pushed against ours, one side off the cot so his mattress and ours are "joined"). I may on occasion need to pop his dummy back in, that's as "acknowledging" as it gets. He'll lay there and look at me, his whimpers will calm down and he'll drift off.
Once, he's woken up for no knowable reason, and started shouting. I put his dummy in, turned his white noise on, and tried offering a bottle. None of these worked, so I lifted him and OH and I spent the next hour bouncing him around and calming him down. That's the only time I've actually touched him between bedtime and get-up.
When he was night-feeding... He went randomly one night from midnight to 8am without waking. I knew then that he could do it (this was when feeding at midnight and again at 4am). So, the next night when he woke up at 4am, I gave him his dummy instead. This continued for about half an hour, then he started crying, so I gave him his bottle. The next night, he woke at 5am. I did the dummy thing again, and got him to nearly 6am before he started crying, and I gave him his bottle. The third night, he woke at 7:30am.
Win.

At no point have I left him to cry, I just don't instantly grab him up. I let him figure out if he can sort himself out, which he does, save the one random night.
Does this seem like an okay plan?

I mention the feed example, because it seems the same as mrs v was explaining, I think.
It wasn't that he "needed" to wake up, it was just that he was in the habit of it.



I hope all that makes sense, and thanks for reading if you did. Xx

 

[russellmuscle]

I think most mummies wait a few mins, don't instantly lift but still wait it out a couple mins.

So, I'd say that was fine.

Its what I do, I'd like to think I'm a mother with common sense lol xxxxx

 

[Rhino Horn]

This is a genuine question and not a dig, but if the research done by the poster in this forum proved that cc is damaging, why hasnt the nhs picked up on this? The nhs are still using the study done in Australia which states cc (if done correctly) is not damaging.

I'd like to think we are a pretty sensible lot and we do the best we can for our babies with the information we are given. I've been very lucky with both of my girls and havent had to use any form of sleep training but I know plenty who have used cc with great success. X

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Emamay]

Sleeping a baby on their front is damaging.

Weaning before six months is damaging.

Eating bacon is damaging.

Research is what research is, and we only focus on the side that suits us.
If I wanted to put baby on its tummy to sleep, I'd find every damn but of research that says why it's a good idea. If I wanted baby on its back, I'd find everything that says tummy sleeping is bad.

(Not literally, if you're doing proper research you look very carefully at both sides, but ultimately, you focus more on the positives for your choice).


Weaning before six months is bad, but baby food etc still says four months plus on it (although I believe this is currently being changed).


It may not necessarily be that bad, but the people in this thread that are against it, they believe it's bad, and that's their opinion. Those that agree with it likewise.

I hope that makes sense... Xx

 

[leesey]

Sleeping a baby on their front is damaging.

Weaning before six months is damaging.

Eating bacon is damaging.

The debate about food is a fairly new one, and the latter two of your comments are only valid if you take them together - ie. weaning before six months is damaging if you feed them foods that are unhealthy for them such as bacon!! It's a medical fact that too much salt can damage a baby's liver (kidneys?) but it's not a medical fact that sleeping a baby on their front is damaging. It is recommended that they do not sleep on their fronts because it could be a contributing factor to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). It's not conclusively proven.

However, the damage caused by controlled crying is. Brain scans show the damage to emotional development, synapses in the brain that should join together telling a baby that the world is a comforting place don't happen. This means that the baby does not have the security of knowing the world can be nice and safe and when something scary or upsetting happens then mummy or daddy will make it all better. Instead the connections they make tell them that there's no point in crying because no one wants to comfort them. Their systems shut down.

In evolutionary terms, babies who cried and cried got preyed on by predators. So babies will always eventually stop crying. It doesn't mean that they are ok, it means that their body has shut down. Their autonomic nervous systems pacify them and it slows their heart rate down. This is not long after their heart rates have been racing because they were crying and upset. I'm sure you can imagine how de-regulating this is for babies. They haven't suddenly calmed down, their bodies made them do it. They are still seeping with cortisol and other stress hormones, which are the ones that damage the brains.

Cuddling and comforting releases seretonin and oxytocin, which are the happy hormones that create positive brain development and emotional regulation. Cuddling = happy. Comforting = happy. Happy = healthy development. Couldn't be simpler.


Anyone who's done any academic work will know that scholarly articles aren't available to the general public. Hence why I gave names instead of articles. Please feel free to get in touch with the authors and ask them questions about their research. Margot Sunderland, Suzanne Zeedyk, Pinky McKay.

My own research is not published yet, but an abstract should be available from the University of Aberdeen library in a few months.

Lastly, the Australian research that advocated controlled crying was done 11 years ago and has been called, I quote "social ideology masquerading as science" by a leading SIDS expert. The AAIMHI, who initially published the study, later wrote a position paper to clarify that they did not in fact back the research. The position paper, however, is now outdated as further research has shown the actual effect on the brain (the paper concluded by saying it could be used with care as there was no medical evidence, this is no longer the case).

I've tried to take a step back from this post, because it's frustrating naturally and at some points bordering on abusive, but I wanted to respond to those genuinely interested in the research.

 

[leesey]

This is a genuine question and not a dig, but if the research done by the poster in this forum proved that cc is damaging, why hasnt the nhs picked up on this?

They have. It was at an NHS conference that I met the above authors, who were speakers at the NHS-organised event on raising awareness on the importance of supporting parents to do the right things by their babies and children for positive mental, social and emotional wellbeing.

Here's the conference flyer, if you're interested https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CD0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maternal-and-early-years.org.uk%2Ffile%2F02fa2b38-efd0-4118-b894-a1d900ee2500&ei=ZpYBUrmqF8r50gX7mICgDA&usg=AFQjCNFPJAIGyTvZ4bfZqsemOKirlW76EQ&sig2=oDzPssqBswtRk7MF1dcwWg&bvm=bv.50310824,d.d2k xx

 

[leesey]

I'm not able to provide articles in full (unless anyone has a Shibboleth password from their institution, then PM me and I'll give you the link), but I can quote a recent study by Middlemiss et al in the Journal of Early Human Development:

"This study is unique in that it supports a role for sensitivity in physiological synchrony during nighttime interactions,
which has not been previously explored."

"On Day 1, infants signaled their distress vocally by crying, which enabled the mothers to perceive and react physiologically to their distress levels." (This was just before the controlled crying was started - this was the normal 'comfort' response to distress)

"On the third day of the sleep training program [controlled crying]... infants no longer exhibited behavioral cues indicating presence of distress. Rather, as anticipated based on previous research and program expectations for infants' behavior, infants' vocalization of distress at transition to sleep without caregiver response was absent." (They've stopped crying to show their distress)

"However, an examination of infants' physiological state identified a disconnect in infants' behavior and physiological
expressions of distress. Although infants exhibited no behavioral cue that they were experiencing distress at the transition to sleep, the infants continued to experience high levels of physiological distress, as reflected in their cortisol scores" (So even though they no longer cry, bedtime is still a very stressful experience for them due to the previous experiences they encountered, and the knowledge that even if they cry, no one will comfort them).

"The continued presence of distress without caregivers' responsiveness in regulating the stress response may be associated with... the dysregulated stress responses associated with insecure attachment status" (Controlled crying practices may disrupt the baby's ability to build secure attachments).

I hope this is of interest to the many people who asked for examples of studies. I'm sure you can guess that I find attachment and emotional wellbeing thoroughly fascinating, if anyone is genuinely interested in the academic research out there instead of internet and tabloid nonsense please feel free to pm me any questions and I will do my best to point you in the right direction xx

 

[MrsW84]

Thanks for that info leesey.....I don't think this post is abusive I think people have had a good opportunity to ask questions and voice opinions...always a sensitive issue when it comes to this sort of subject as its so emotive
How many children are looked at in these studies? And why does the NHS still advise controlled crying is ok?

 

[Emamay]

Leesey...

When I said about bacon I meant for people in general. It was only a short while ago that people decided bacon causes cancer.

I was more trying to come up with an answer for Rhino horn (why hasn't the NHS picked up on this).

We've decided eating bacon is linked to causing cancer, but the NHS hasn't automatically picked up on an anti-bacon rally.


CC is obviously something you've looked at at length, and I'm gonna go re-read your post now because there was a lot of info in there that I skimmed over previously.


Thank you for taking the time to share your heartfelt hard work. I hope people take note and consider what you've had to say xx

 

[mrs v]

On a brighter note he slept through AGAIN!

 

[Rhino Horn]

"The continued presence of distress without caregivers' responsiveness in regulating the stress response may be associated with... the dysregulated stress responses associated with insecure attachment status" (Controlled crying practices may disrupt the baby's ability to build secure attachments).

I appreciate the long posts and the information you have provided

What stood out for me is the above. That it MAY be associated with building secure attachments.

Is there conclusive proof? And if so are you able to quote it?

Also I am still confused if the Nhs has seen all of this new evidence why it still has on its on website information stating cc is ok . Is it a political thing?


Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk 2

 

[knopk@]

It takes a long time to make it to guidelines. My MIL used to work for NICE and my SIL is in.medical research

Tapatalking so cant see signatures

 

[Little_angel]

Leesey - is this the study you're quoting? It appears to be and if so it's available in full to everyone online. You may not be aware if you always access research via academic portals, but lots of articles are freely available, if not in full then at least the abstracts, which often give people a little insight and offer an opportunity to purchase the whole document. Even if you can't post links, you can give a reference to anything published to allow people to look up the articles themselves.

As a health professional I understand how frustrating it is when you feel you have the definitive answer and people aren't listening, but these days we live in an age where people are constantly bombarded with "truths" and advice about health. I think people have learnt that research is not always to be believed and there are often conflicting studies. This makes them want to see the evidence for themselves, particularly in a group like this where we are a real mixed bag, including scientists, doctors etc. I will be happy if we are moving towards a world where people don't automatically believe what they read in the media (Daily Mail health reporting anyone?).

For the record, I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not commenting on it.

 

[Little_angel]

I think this must be a different Australian study than the one Leesey mentioned, because it was published much later than the position paper, or possibly it could be a follow up to it. Only the abstract appears to be free to view, but this page on the NHS Choices website gives a common sense interpretation.

 

[clairebear22]

On a brighter note he slept through AGAIN!

Well done little Archie!! Looks like you've definately cracked it hun!! x

 

[diane]

Thank you leesey for some great information. Very informative and helpful.

 

[Little_angel]

One thing I will say about the Middlemiss et al paper is that it includes only 25 babies, aged from 4 to 10 months, with an average age of 6.5 months. The Australian study that appears to point to a lack of harm is based exclusively on babies aged over 7 months. I've not seen any advice advocating cc for very young babies.

Also in Middlemiss, the controlled crying was done in a residential unit, not the baby's familiar environment and during the sleep settling period they were attended to by a nurse, not the mother. It's hard to know if this is significant to the results, but it strikes me a difference to how you would do things at home.

Other than that I think the paper is quite inaccessible. I'm not and never have been an academic and I don't think I understand it all. Perhaps it reveals different things to someone in the field.

 

[Lynds77]

On a brighter note he slept through AGAIN!

Yay! Did he stir at all? I heard Freya whimper a bit at 3.30 as usual but straight back to sleep. she then woke me up at 8am doing a poop. Delighted

Clever babies. X