If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
A dose of bull in the Sunday paper
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
A dose of bull in the Sunday paper
"Circe" wrote in message news:8mgNb.14920$Ar1.10058@fed1read04...
Joshua Levy wrote: (HollyLewis) wrote in message ... The recent studies that I've seen show that co-sleeping babies have more sleep problems that crib sleepers: Actually, it's that babies with sleep problems are more likely to be cosleepers than crib sleepers -- it's the sleep difficulties that lead to longer-term cosleeping, not the other way around. Nice guess, but your're wrong. Usually it is very hard to seperate cause and effect, so you would have a good argument. But in this case, there is the Latz study, which compared sleep problems in Japan and the US, and found more problems in co-sleepers in both Japan and the US. In Japan co-sleeping in normal. Bzzt! Reread the abstract. The study found more *night-waking* in the Japanese co-sleepers, but night-waking isn't necessarily a sleep problem and it's something that parents of babies who sleep in cribs may not even be aware is happening. Sigh. Read the paper. (Is that too much to ask?) Night-waking is NOT waking up and going back to sleep. Night waking is waking up and NOT going back to sleep. That's the sleep problem; that's what is reported on in their statistics. Night-waking isn't a *problem* for parents unless the waking requires the parent to intervene. I'm not so self-centered. I think night waking is a problem, because it disrupts the baby's sleep. You can take the position that only parents need a good night's sleep, but I don't agree. The Finnish study showed that co-sleeping kids have night-waking problems even after they have stopped co-sleeping. Meantime, you still haven't shown that co-sleeping *creates* sleep problems rather than the other way around for parents in the US, where co-sleeping is not the norm. I've shown that co-sleeping babies have more sleep problems than crib sleepers, that this effect continues after they stop co-sleeping, and that co-sleeping is not a reaction to night-wakings, but the other way around. Obviously, you can have whatever opinions you want, but the studies which compare co-sleepers to crib sleepers are not wrong because you disagree with there results. Rather than saying silly things like 'night wakings do not bother the parents' why don't you try to find some data to support your ideas? Joshua Levy |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
A dose of bull in the Sunday paper
Joshua Levy wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message news:8mgNb.14920$Ar1.10058@fed1read04... Joshua Levy wrote: Nice guess, but your're wrong. Usually it is very hard to seperate cause and effect, so you would have a good argument. But in this case, there is the Latz study, which compared sleep problems in Japan and the US, and found more problems in co-sleepers in both Japan and the US. In Japan co-sleeping in normal. Bzzt! Reread the abstract. The study found more *night-waking* in the Japanese co-sleepers, but night-waking isn't necessarily a sleep problem and it's something that parents of babies who sleep in cribs may not even be aware is happening. Sigh. Read the paper. (Is that too much to ask?) I'd love to. Point me to a place on the web where I can access the entire text of the study for free and I'll be happy to read it. I am now, however, willing to pay for the privilege of satisfying my curiosity. Night-waking is NOT waking up and going back to sleep. Night waking is waking up and NOT going back to sleep. Really? For how long? I mean, my crib-sleeping babies all woke 2-3 times per night on average until well into the second year of life, but they typically went back to sleep easily within 10-15 minutes of breastfeeding. Were they awake long enough for it to be classified as a "sleep problem" or not? IF not, how long does the baby have to be awake before it's classified as a "problem"--30 minutes, an hour, what? I am perfectly willing to allow the co-sleeping babies might wake up and take 10-15 minute snacks more often than crib-sleeping babies. OTOH, it's quite possible that co-sleeping parents of a baby who woke 4-5 times might get a better night's sleep than the parents of a crib-sleeping baby who wakes only half as often. The reason is that the act of getting out of bed to tend to the baby's needs makes the parents far more wakeful than simply tending the baby's need in their own bed, and being more wakeful means it takes the parents longer to fall back to sleep. Now, as it happens, I sleep poorly with anyone other than my husband in my bed. With the exception of a few weeks in very early infancy, I never found co-sleeping improved my sleep situation because *I* didn't sleep well even when the baby slept. But for parents who find it easy to sleep with a baby, I can credit the idea that *more* night-waking would not necessarily equal a *worse* sleep situation than crib-sleeping. Night-waking isn't a *problem* for parents unless the waking requires the parent to intervene. I'm not so self-centered. I think night waking is a problem, because it disrupts the baby's sleep. You can take the position that only parents need a good night's sleep, but I don't agree. What makes you think that waking up at night is bad or necessarily equate to insufficient/poor sleep? Gosh, I have "slept through night" perhaps a half a dozen times in my adult life. I wake up quite often at night. Sometimes, I roll over and go back to sleep within a few minutes. Others, I get up and go to the toilet or get something to drink. I don't feel sleep-deprived or disrupted as a result. And as a baby, I slept in a crib and, as far as my mother can recall, "slept through the night" without problems, so my sleep patterns clearly can't be attributed to bad habits learned in childhood. Frankly, I think the whole idea that it's natural or normal for adult human beings to sleep an uninterrupted 8-hour stretch is bogus, anyway. I think it's highly unlikely that our ancestors slept that way; it's much more likely that they went to their beds shortly after it became dark and stayed in bed until dawn. Depending on the time of the year and location, that might well mean 10 or more hours spent in bed. I remember reading some time ago about a study that was done that showed that when people don't have electricity, they go to bed much earlier and get up much earlier, that they tend to wake more often at night and to spend longer periods during the night resting but not sleeping, and that overall, the participants reported feeling better rested despite the more frequent periods of wakefulness during the night than when they went to bed later, woke less often, but spent fewer hours in bed. (Sorry, I haven't a reference or the time to look it up, so you'll either have to take my word for it or see if you find it yourself.) My experience of sleep while backbacking or doing primitive camping has been very similar, so I find the conclusions of the study quite logical. Given the fact that, under the conditions that have been normative for the vast majority of human history and prehistory, adults probably didn't sleep for long, uninterrupted periods, it seems pretty unlikely that sleeping for a long. unbroken period at night is either natural or normal for babies or children, either. It's only because we've strayed so far with modern technology from our natural sleep patterns that frequent night-waking and periods of wakefulness are problems--we're simply trying to squeeze all our sleep into less time than we really need. The truth is that we'd all be better rested if we spent more time in bed, even if we spent considerably more of our time in bed awake or merely dozing. And since every other mammal mother on the planet sleeps with her young, I think it's inconceivable that there's anything maladaptive about co-sleeping in humans except to the extent that our modern way of life conflicts with it. The Finnish study showed that co-sleeping kids have night-waking problems even after they have stopped co-sleeping. Perhaps. However, I didn't get the impression that co-sleeping is the norm in Finland and, therefore, the study doesn't adequately separate cause and effect (i.e., do poor sleepers co-sleep or does co-sleeping create poor sleepers?). Meantime, you still haven't shown that co-sleeping *creates* sleep problems rather than the other way around for parents in the US, where co-sleeping is not the norm. I've shown that co-sleeping babies have more sleep problems than crib sleepers, that this effect continues after they stop co-sleeping, and that co-sleeping is not a reaction to night-wakings, but the other way around. Sorry, but I think you've done nothing of the kind. Unless the Japanese study controls for the possibility that babies who start out co-sleeping and wake very seldom are more likely to be moved to cribs than their more frequent-waking counterparts (a fairly logical possibility), you haven't shown that co-sleeping isn't a reaction to night-waking. All you have shown is that parents with babies who wake a lot at night are more likely to co-sleep than parents of babies who wake less often. In other words, you've got correlation, not causality. Obviously, you can have whatever opinions you want, but the studies which compare co-sleepers to crib sleepers are not wrong because you disagree with there results. I didn't say they were *wrong*. I don't disagree with the results. I think it's entirely possible that co-sleeping and frequent, parent-reported night-waking are co-related; in fact, I think it makes perfect sense that they would be, for all the reasons I've mentioned. What I *don't* agree with is the notion that co-sleeping *causes* the reported sleep problems. It may cause them for *some* babies. For others, co-sleeping may be the parental response to them. And in still others, parents who might well prefer to co-sleep may choose crib-sleeping because that works better for their babies. Rather than saying silly things like 'night wakings do not bother the parents' why don't you try to find some data to support your ideas? I don't have to find data to support the conclusion that the studies you've referenced merely prove *correlation*, not causation. Of course, causation is a bitch to prove, especially in the social sciences, which is why researchers rarely claim to have done it. Beyond that, you still haven't answered my question: what's your motivation for repeating, over and over, the claim that co-sleeping causes sleep problems? Why do you *care* so much what other people do? -- Be well, Barbara (Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [22 mos.] mom) This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop: "Call anywhere, any time...virtually from any phone" -- prepaid phone card dispenser Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning. Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls! All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful. Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insomnia | Zaz | Pregnancy | 8 | July 3rd 04 07:00 PM |
Flipchart paper | [email protected] | General | 0 | December 25th 03 05:01 PM |
paper diapers that don't leak? | zeldabee | Breastfeeding | 31 | November 1st 03 03:28 PM |
Merck gives aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) to babies in Singulair | Rich Murray | Kids Health | 11 | October 31st 03 12:00 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |