[exo]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Since I know nothing about this, is this "babywise" method that which is associated with Gary Ezzo?? I just did a search because I had never heard of it and almost every link speaks negatively of it. This makes me wonder if this is what you are referring to.

Here is one of the pages that came up when I just googled "babywise" http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/bab...leep/9108.html

Yes, it is the same, and I can already tell from reading the article that they didn't actually read the book itself. For instance:

"Ezzo's self-designed, strictly regimented feeding program, called Parent-Directed Feeding (PDF), which has parents put their newborn on a strict feeding / waking / sleeping schedule. Rather than feed a baby when he shows signs of hunger — a technique known as demand feeding — parents are instructed to feed by the clock. The goal? Ostensibly to establish routine in your baby's life from day one and stick to it no matter what."

That is COMPLETELY NOT what Ezzo says. In fact, he says quite the opposite and argues AGAINST a 'strict' regimen. If I were to restate the above it would look like this:

"Ezzo's self-designed, regimented feeding program, called Parent-Directed Feeding (PDF), which has parents put their newborn on a feeding / waking / sleeping schedule. Rather than only feed a baby when he shows signs of hunger — a technique known as demand feeding — parents are instructed to feed by the clock, unless they determine that their baby does indeed need more to eat. The goal? Ostensibly to establish routine in your baby's life from between day seven and day 14 and stick to it as best as possible."

It's actually completely inaccurate. The very first thing they recommend is to basically throw the first 3 days to a week out the window in terms of trying to establish a schedule of any kind. And while it certainly is a schedule it's not some strict, no holds barred type of schedule. In fact, that's the POINT of calling it parent-directed-feeding. YOU determine what your child needs rather than shoving a bottle in their mouth every time they cry.

And, honestly, a few cases of dehydration, etc. are most likely the cause of parents applying his methods improperly... If this method *causes* failure to thrive, then why aren't millions of babies being rushed to the hospital. Sounds to me like 'the-sky-is-falling' mentality.

And reading more of the article just gets me more burned up. They really don't understand it.

(Note: That is not to say that Ezzo is not without his flaws or the book itself isn't without flaw... just that they misrepresent what he is saying.)

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by exo

Yes, it is the same, and I can already tell from reading the article that they didn't actually read the book itself. For instance:

"Ezzo's self-designed, strictly regimented feeding program, called Parent-Directed Feeding (PDF), which has parents put their newborn on a strict feeding / waking / sleeping schedule. Rather than feed a baby when he shows signs of hunger — a technique known as demand feeding — parents are instructed to feed by the clock. The goal? Ostensibly to establish routine in your baby's life from day one and stick to it no matter what."

That is COMPLETELY NOT what Ezzo says. In fact, he says quite the opposite and argues AGAINST a 'strict' regimen. If I were to restate the above it would look like this:

"Ezzo's self-designed, regimented feeding program, called Parent-Directed Feeding (PDF), which has parents put their newborn on a feeding / waking / sleeping schedule. Rather than only feed a baby when he shows signs of hunger — a technique known as demand feeding — parents are instructed to feed by the clock, unless they determine that their baby does indeed need more to eat. The goal? Ostensibly to establish routine in your baby's life from between day seven and day 14 and stick to it as best as possible."

It's actually completely inaccurate. The very first thing they recommend is to basically throw the first 3 days to a week out the window in terms of trying to establish a schedule of any kind. And while it certainly is a schedule it's not some strict, no holds barred type of schedule. In fact, that's the POINT of calling it parent-directed-feeding. YOU determine what your child needs rather than shoving a bottle in their mouth every time they cry.

And, honestly, a few cases of dehydration, etc. are most likely the cause of parents applying his methods improperly... If this method *causes* failure to thrive, then why aren't millions of babies being rushed to the hospital. Sounds to me like 'the-sky-is-falling' mentality.

And reading more of the article just gets me more burned up. They really don't understand it.

(Note: That is not to say that Ezzo is not without his flaws or the book itself isn't without flaw... just that they misrepresent what he is saying.)

That is why I asked, because the majority of articles that came up on a google search were similar to that one. I never read a single book when I had my boys, but I am curious about what is coming out these days. My personal opinion is to chuck every one of them, have a good talk with your own mom and all the "grannies" in your church, and then just do what works for you and your own child. I will say though that I did feed my boys when they were hungry and put them down when they were tired. I never tried to "schedule" either eating or sleeping as I figured my kids would let me know when they were hungry or sleepy.

[nate95366]

With our two (21 month old daughter, 3 month old son), we have pretty much held the "Babywise" method in tension with the "Attachment" method and used our own perceived strengths of each.

For instance:

1) We hold and cuddle with our kids a lot (Attachment), but they do not sleep in our bed for any significant length of time (Babywise).

2) We feed them when it makes sense for us to do so (Babywise), but we do not ignore crying out-of-hand (Attachment)

3) Our daughter never really "got" the Babywise cycle of being a baby - the first you eat, then you play, then you sleep, then you eat, then you play, then you sleep...thing. She had them all out of order. We didn't obstinantly (even though both my wife and I are wired just a bit on the stubborn side) coerce her into the book's way of life. Our son seems to have read the Babywise book (at least regarding this issue) already and is cooperating wonderfully.

I guess what I'd say is that attachment parenting to the point of making your own life completely revolve around the baby is (and this is just my opinion, and I am NOT a medical doctor, psychologist, etc; rather just a high school science teacher with two kids) potentially dangerous, if for nothing else than for the fallout it creates when a time comes where the baby cannot be at the center for any length of time.

At the same time, Babywise sometimes approaches (again, in my opinion) recommending a somewhat impersonal approach to parenting, or maybe something on the level of trying to reason with a 3-month old. 3-month olds are smart, but I wouldn't recommend trying to reason with one to the point of trying to nail him/her down to your rapidly fluctuating schedule.

Probably the most important thing that I took from Babywise (and many other experienced parents) is that routine/schedule matters BIG TIME. For the kiddos, life is all about a predictable order of events. Specific timing of those events matters less than their order as well. If bedtime is always after storytime, which is after bathtime, it really doesn't matter as much what the clock says when we start bathtime (and we've found that we can be "off" by up to an hour or two) - bathtime signals that we're winding the day down, and there's no surprise when bedtime comes.

Enough rambling for today. Maybe more later if I feel like it...(can you tell that my wife and kids are on vacation while I'm on jury duty?)

Nate

[Role Modlin]

Honestly...we just winged it with all three of ours. All three of them behaved differently too. Jamie (who just turned 1) is already on a very set schedule but the boys were at least 18 months before anything remotely resembling a schedule happened.