How to stop the night wakings?

"cjra" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 2:49 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , Jamie Clark
says...

Not only are there things about the people involved being sensitive to
various
things (not criticizing) that limit the options, theres all kinds of
limits on
cost, effort, 'consumerism', etc. etc. I understand wanting to go for
the
simplest effective solution. But one needs to give the problem enough
latitude
to actually be able to *have* an effective solution at all!

I'm guessing you missed the first 20-30 or so posts in this thread,
where a number of solutions were offered and discussed, and I said I
was going to try some of them for a certain length of time to see how
they worked. Some I've already tried and they didn't work, so I'm on
to the next step. or they worked for awhile but now no longer.

I rejected other solutions as not feasible or just simply more extreme
than I felt was warranted initially. Those rejected solutions are what
led to more extreme options. The perfectly feasible and realistic
options are in the works. I think that's sufficient latitude.

If you can't see all the messages on your newsreader, try reading
through google groups, as then you can see all the messages and you'll
find all the ones where we discussed those things I'm about to try. If
you don't feel like reading all the messages I can't blame you, but
you must also understand that if you jump into a discussion late, you
can't draw any conclusions as you've missed a lot.

I think the only reason options appeared to become extreme was that they
were offered to help resolve simpler situations that apparently couldn't be
used. For example, you and DH can't share a room at the moment as DD's in
there and you want to sleep.. DD can't move in to your room due to the lack
of doors. Therefore, it was suggested DH and you sleep in your room, but due
to you not wanting to move the beds at the moment, it was suggested you get
a mattress topper as a tempory solution to aid DH's back.

This isn't me saying you're rejecting all ideas, it's me trying to explain
why the ideas appeared to have escalated. At the start of the thread, no one
was saying that you should buy DH a new mattress etc, those ideas only came
about later when others were said to be unfeasable. The bigger ideas only
came about to help you acheive the simpler ones - i.e., DD sleeping in a
room of her own in a house that's not ready yet, as you said you felt like
it was teasing her to have her crib in your room. Not sleeping well until
the completion is due in september seems like a long time to be tired to me.

Whatever you decide to do, I hope you all get a night's sleep soon!

Lucy x

On Mar 14, 5:03 am, "Linda" wrote:
"Anne Rogers" wrote in message

. ..



Not unless we win the lottery and can pay someone to do it. We
scheduled out every weekend based on what needs to be done, and came
up with a September end date. No other rooms are 'complete' except our
bedroom.

I think you're stuck between a rock and a hard place here, I honestly
think that to both continue nursing and cosleeping and also sleep through
the night is a VERY hard task, something that I cannot recall a single
person I've come across having done it (that could be because if it was
easy and not a problem it doesn't get mentioned). I know plenty of people
who nursed toddlers and had them sleeping through the night in a separate
room and I also know of non nursing cosleeping though the night toddlers -
I've had one of each myself!

This is what we did. DD still sleeps with us and is now just over 2. At
around 18 months or so I was sick of her waking to feed, often 2 or 3 times
a night (and we were wanting to try for another child and my period hadn't
returned yet) , so I'd suggest she just have a cuddle first, and if she
still wanted to nurse afterwards she could. She would still nurse to sleep
at that point, and I introduced it by saying let's just have a cuddle, and
then she can nurse. Then when she would wake in the night and want to nurse
I would do the same thing - the first few nights she woke, and I didn't
nurse her straight away she cried and I told her I was just going to cuddle
her first and then she could nurse - which I did. After a few days she
accepted it and it wasn't long before she woke up, cuddled and went straight
back to sleep without nursing at all. Then when she woke up after that time
I would say - "No, you don't nurse in the middle of the night!! (Like it
was a funny thing to want) - How about a cuddle, or a sip of water?" And
she would be fine, and pretty much after that time she started sleeping
through without a problem.
HTH


Yeah, I think this is part of the problem. When I first moved out of
the room, about 14 months, it took a few days but she started sleeping
longer stretched and eventually got to 9-10 hour stretches almost
consistently. She she'd stopped nursing during the night, but would
nurse when she woke up and before sleeping. All was well. I didn't
even have to go through the whole 'you don't want to nurse' thing - I
wasn't there so she didn't notice. Well, she did try to nurse DH a few
times, but she quickly learned that didn't work and fell back to
sleep.

Then she got sick, would eat or drink *nothing* and I nursed her like
a newborn...she got better fairly quickly, at least over the worst,
and her appetite did come back, but not to quite the same level. She
developed a sinus infection around that time, which improved with
antibiotics and then we were travelling and again nursing more than
normal. This got compounded by a short hospital stay by me, and DH
started giving her milk again at night because it usually worked to
help her sleep, but eventually that turned into her waking up for it.
Since then things haven't been as consistent as they should have been.
I've gone in to nurse her a number of times, because she'll scream
like she's in pain or desperate, but I realize now it's just that
she's smart ;-)

So I think you're right in that we really need to decide no nursing at
night at all, and no milk from Papa either and just be prepared to
stick it out a lot longer this time.

What I noticed last night is that even though she's not nursing, she's
touching me. She'll doze off, I even hear snoring. I inch away (I
can't sleep that close anymore) and as soon as I move away, no matter
how gentle, she sits up and yells. Stinker.

On Mar 14, 3:20 pm, Banty wrote:

OK, thats fine.

It's just that when there are sooo many limits placed on a problem, it may never
converge to a solution.

Blame the engineer in me.

Not only are there things about the people involved being sensitive to various
things (not criticizing) that limit the options, theres all kinds of limits on
cost, effort, 'consumerism', etc. etc. I understand wanting to go for the
simplest effective solution. But one needs to give the problem enough latitude
to actually be able to *have* an effective solution at all!

I'm guessing you missed the first 20-30 or so posts in this thread,
where a number of solutions were offered and discussed, and I said I
was going to try some of them for a certain length of time to see how
they worked. Some I've already tried and they didn't work, so I'm on
to the next step. or they worked for awhile but now no longer.

I rejected other solutions as not feasible or just simply more extreme
than I felt was warranted initially. Those rejected solutions are what
led to more extreme options. The perfectly feasible and realistic
options are in the works. I think that's sufficient latitude.

I *have* been reading. Just not commenting as I didnt have the same issue. But
I think there is some reaching for the simple, but likely ineffective going on.
Like the failed dieter saying "i tried this; i tried that...."...

Then you're wilfully ignoring quite a lot of responses where I
specifically said "I will try that."


Well, getting a pretty much livable house, although a fixer, would have been
easier (but I'm sure you'll list your reasons why you couldn't do *that*).

That's not the topic for discussion. We had reasons for our choice,
which as I've said are not really relevant here. We're happy with our
choice. The situation just is as it is, and it's different than it
would be for someone with a new house. Ok. It's hard for many to
picture the layout or circumstances if it's not something they've ever
experienced.

But
that's water under the bridge. I'm guessing you just underestimated the amount
of upheaval all the remod would be. But that's just human.

Yes and no. We've both done/lived in houses throughout renovations
before (my parents' house took about 15 years), and we'd looked at
about 10-15 houses over a year before settling on this one. We did
know how much work was involved, but we did underestimate the time,
and we've made some mistakes along the way with certain contractors.
We also wrongly assumed we could do much more when DD was born than
we've been able to.

All I'm saying is.. maybe the bottom line of all this is that, between changes
you can't, or won't, do, it doesnt really in the end matter all that much which
is which, and you can maybe just hold on until the house is all done.

Maybe. I liked many of the suggestions offered which can be addressed
immediately without major structural changes to our household (moving
the crib next to the bed, removing the arms of it, not nursing, for
example are all things first on the list). As I've said, too many
times to count, if these steps don't work after a reasonable amount of
time, we go to the next step.

On Mar 14, 3:25 pm, "lu-lu" wrote:
"cjra" wrote in message

...

On Mar 14, 2:49 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , Jamie Clark
says...

Not only are there things about the people involved being sensitive to
various
things (not criticizing) that limit the options, theres all kinds of
limits on
cost, effort, 'consumerism', etc. etc. I understand wanting to go for
the
simplest effective solution. But one needs to give the problem enough
latitude
to actually be able to *have* an effective solution at all!

I'm guessing you missed the first 20-30 or so posts in this thread,
where a number of solutions were offered and discussed, and I said I
was going to try some of them for a certain length of time to see how
they worked. Some I've already tried and they didn't work, so I'm on
to the next step. or they worked for awhile but now no longer.

I rejected other solutions as not feasible or just simply more extreme
than I felt was warranted initially. Those rejected solutions are what
led to more extreme options. The perfectly feasible and realistic
options are in the works. I think that's sufficient latitude.

If you can't see all the messages on your newsreader, try reading
through google groups, as then you can see all the messages and you'll
find all the ones where we discussed those things I'm about to try. If
you don't feel like reading all the messages I can't blame you, but
you must also understand that if you jump into a discussion late, you
can't draw any conclusions as you've missed a lot.

I think the only reason options appeared to become extreme was that they
were offered to help resolve simpler situations that apparently couldn't be
used. For example, you and DH can't share a room at the moment as DD's in
there and you want to sleep..

I guess I wasn't clear enough early on. So let me clarify now:
I chose to sleep in another room because for some months that seemed
to help DD sleep. It's not now. The situation we're currently faced
with is that she must sleep in this particular room. I don't know if
DH being there is a problem or not. I know my being there is
potentially problematic. I'm trying to figure out how I can still have
her in that room, with DH, and sleep.

Some suggestions have been very helpful, and we're trying them.

I certainly haven't said all the situations suggested can't be used!

In article ,
cjra says...

On Mar 14, 3:20 pm, Banty wrote:

OK, thats fine.

It's just that when there are sooo many limits placed on a problem, it may
never
converge to a solution.

Blame the engineer in me.

Not only are there things about the people involved being sensitive to various
things (not criticizing) that limit the options, theres all kinds of limits on
cost, effort, 'consumerism', etc. etc. I understand wanting to go for the
simplest effective solution. But one needs to give the problem enough
latitude
to actually be able to *have* an effective solution at all!

I'm guessing you missed the first 20-30 or so posts in this thread,
where a number of solutions were offered and discussed, and I said I
was going to try some of them for a certain length of time to see how
they worked. Some I've already tried and they didn't work, so I'm on
to the next step. or they worked for awhile but now no longer.

I rejected other solutions as not feasible or just simply more extreme
than I felt was warranted initially. Those rejected solutions are what
led to more extreme options. The perfectly feasible and realistic
options are in the works. I think that's sufficient latitude.

I *have* been reading. Just not commenting as I didnt have the same issue. But
I think there is some reaching for the simple, but likely ineffective going on.
Like the failed dieter saying "i tried this; i tried that...."...

Then you're wilfully ignoring quite a lot of responses where I
specifically said "I will try that."

For all of two days...

I think that your solution will probably have to come in some combination of
conditioning her (crying it out or similar), which will take some sheer will and
consistency, and getting yourselves set up more ideally as far as bedroom
separation and doors and beds and so on. Which you don't have access to right
now. You can try moving the crib and stuff like that - it's what we call in
problem solving "low hanging fruit". But it often doesn't get at the cause -
they're the cheap things that might work on an off-chance.

Not saying you shouldn't try it first



Well, getting a pretty much livable house, although a fixer, would have been
easier (but I'm sure you'll list your reasons why you couldn't do *that*).

That's not the topic for discussion. We had reasons for our choice,
which as I've said are not really relevant here. We're happy with our
choice. The situation just is as it is, and it's different than it
would be for someone with a new house. Ok. It's hard for many to
picture the layout or circumstances if it's not something they've ever
experienced.

That's what I said (below) - it is what it is.



But
that's water under the bridge. I'm guessing you just underestimated the amount
of upheaval all the remod would be. But that's just human.

Yes and no. We've both done/lived in houses throughout renovations
before (my parents' house took about 15 years), and we'd looked at
about 10-15 houses over a year before settling on this one. We did
know how much work was involved, but we did underestimate the time,
and we've made some mistakes along the way with certain contractors.
We also wrongly assumed we could do much more when DD was born than
we've been able to.

Yep. That's all I'm saying. It's human. *Everyone* underestimates that stuff.
Yes, even those who have done it before.


All I'm saying is.. maybe the bottom line of all this is that, between changes
you can't, or won't, do, it doesnt really in the end matter all that much which
is which, and you can maybe just hold on until the house is all done.

Maybe. I liked many of the suggestions offered which can be addressed
immediately without major structural changes to our household (moving
the crib next to the bed, removing the arms of it, not nursing, for
example are all things first on the list). As I've said, too many
times to count, if these steps don't work after a reasonable amount of
time, we go to the next step.


OK.

Good luck.

Banty

On Mar 14, 4:03 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
cjra says...





On Mar 14, 3:20 pm, Banty wrote:

OK, thats fine.

It's just that when there are sooo many limits placed on a problem, it may
never
converge to a solution.

Blame the engineer in me.

Not only are there things about the people involved being sensitive to various
things (not criticizing) that limit the options, theres all kinds of limits on
cost, effort, 'consumerism', etc. etc. I understand wanting to go for the
simplest effective solution. But one needs to give the problem enough
latitude
to actually be able to *have* an effective solution at all!

I'm guessing you missed the first 20-30 or so posts in this thread,
where a number of solutions were offered and discussed, and I said I
was going to try some of them for a certain length of time to see how
they worked. Some I've already tried and they didn't work, so I'm on
to the next step. or they worked for awhile but now no longer.

I rejected other solutions as not feasible or just simply more extreme
than I felt was warranted initially. Those rejected solutions are what
led to more extreme options. The perfectly feasible and realistic
options are in the works. I think that's sufficient latitude.

I *have* been reading. Just not commenting as I didnt have the same issue. But
I think there is some reaching for the simple, but likely ineffective going on.
Like the failed dieter saying "i tried this; i tried that...."...

Then you're wilfully ignoring quite a lot of responses where I
specifically said "I will try that."

For all of two days...

???I said I was only going to try these solutions for two days? If so,
that's not what I meant. I was originally thinking a week. Ann and Sue
both discussed 21 days as optimum. Elizabeth Pantley says 10 days.
We'll start there and see where we are then.

I'm not following.

Thanks for this reassurance, everyone always blames co-sleeping, but
we would not have survived the first year if we didn't co-sleep.She
reverse cycled at 12 weeks, and that was that.

And there are certainly people who co-sleep with non-nursing
older kids without much trouble.

I've always struggled with having a child in the bed, so cosleeping
never meant getting more sleep, though it may have suited DS. He weaned
when I fell pregnant, we then moved to Korea, he had never been a good
sleeper, but at home had been mostly in his own bed in his own room. It
ended up that the vast majority of the time he shared a bed with dad and
slept through whilst I slept by myself. Co sleeping was what made him
sleep through, not the opposite, if DH didn't go and join him when he
went to bed, DS would wake up in the middle of the night and end up in
our bed. We discovered that this was entirely normal in that culture.
One time, I had to go the the ER and a friend came to take DS once it
got late and I wasn't going anywhere, he took DS to bed with him - in
the UK or the US we'd freak about paedaphilia, but it didn't occur to
this chap that it was even worth attempting to do anything different.

Anne

"Jamie Clark" wrote:

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
.. .
cjra wrote:

I have described the house set up repeatedly, perhaps you missed it.
There are not very many rooms in the house. Every other area is OPEN.
It's a smallish house. There's not some side area to put her, so yeah,
wherever she'd be outside the bedroom would be in a common living
space.

Yes I answered before I read the post where you described it again,
and I was not paying attention in the beginning as I did not co-sleep
and did not have much trouble with night waking after about 6 months.

I do live in a pre Civil War house (in the US), but it is two stories.
And very well insulated for noise. Dd#2 was determined that she was
going to be in the band playing with her sister, but we had just moved
and the school system we moved to started instrumental music in 3rd
grade, and she was in 5th grade so way behind. She wanted to get up
and practice before school, but dh said absolutely not, that he wasn't
going to be wakened up at O dark 30 with the screeching of a clarinet.
So DD#2 went downstairs into the 'new' wing (c 1930) and shut herself
in the half bath off the kitchen and she could practice there without
waking her dad. And my son's rock band used to practice in the
living room which is right under our bedroom - made the house vibrate
a bit.

It sounds like you are a whole family of problem sleepers.g. And
that's the problem more than the house.


It sounds to me like she has a family of light sleepers, not problem
sleepers. And she clearly has a small ranch style house, where every room

Wanting a specific mattress, not wanting white noise, and not being
able to sleep where there is talking or the like means problem sleeper
to me and cjra also mentioned that her parents laughed hysterically
when she complains which means to me that they probably had the same
problems with her or at any rate SOME problems.

pretty much opens onto the public rooms -- be it living room, kitchen or
dinning room. I've lived in houses and apartments like that, where life
went on as usual on the other side of your door. Now I live in a large 2
story home, and there are all sorts of places I can go to be out of sight or
earshot from my dh or kids, with or without shutting a door.

I am a very light sleeper. I can't sleep with noise or lights. I can't
sleep sitting up (in an airplane, train, or car, for example). I don't fall
asleep with the TV on, either in bed, or downstairs while watching. Dh
can't stay up in bed and read, or even use a laptop, as that would be too
much light for me and it would keep me awake.

My dh can't fall asleep on an airplane either, nor can he sleep in
shifts on our boat which is a BIG problem for him, because I refuse to
go offshore with him until he can sleep, because it isn't safe for him
to be making the kind of decisions that one make when dealing with the
weather or landfall in a sleep deprived state. So unless he can train
himself (and I firmly believe that it is possible for someone to train
themselves to sleep when it is necessary), he's not going. I don't
think he's quite to the point that he will go off without me.

Dh, on the other hand, can sleep almost anywhere. He is a heavy sleeper,
and routinely falls asleep on the sofa in the middle of a show, or during a
movie, or in bed while I have the overhead light on and am getting ready for
bed, etc. It takes a bit to wake him in the middle of the night. The kids
can be up and down 3-4 times, in and out of our room, talking, etc, and he
hears none of it.

I don't think this is heavy vs light. It is what the person has
trained themselves to do. I was a sound sleeper until I had children.
Then I had to train myself to wake up and go back to sleep again.

cjra wrote:

btw - I don't mean to sound so flippant. I really appreciate all the
helpful advice from this thread and I'm processing it to figure out
what might and what might not be feasible in our situation. I find,
though, that more and more extreme suggestions are offered, getting
away from the original problem, and then I'm accused of making excuses
when I say those just aren't reasonable in the current situation. As a
last resort, maybe, but I don't think we're there yet.

I'm just thinking that odds are you're not very likely
to accomplish the goal of having her and you sleep through
soundly without different rooms, but it sounds like that leaves
you with the move the bed scenario, the improve the bed scenario,
or the DH suffers on the less comfortable bed scenario. By all
means, I think you should try easier methods first, and I certainly
hope they work. My gut is just whispering to me that you're less
likely to have success until you're in separate rooms.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Rosalie B. says...

I don't think this is heavy vs light. It is what the person has
trained themselves to do. I was a sound sleeper until I had children.
Then I had to train myself to wake up and go back to sleep again.

Actually I think it's easier to wake up and go back to sleep again if you're a
sound sleeper. I think a lot of problem with light sleep is not being able to
get to that sleeping state. It's the light sleepers who have trouble falling
asleep again, so the wakings are so problematic.

As a deep sleeper I did have no problem awaking to my son when he did wake up, I
guess I can attune to the specific sounds and disturbances I need to wake up
about. And furhtermore I was able to take calls from work when I was doing work
in microchip manufacturing, which is around-the-clock. I found that easier than
a lot of peole because I can wake up, do whatever is necessary, from nursing a
baby to analysing a process test and giving parameters for the next lot, then go
right back to sleep.

Banty