Dr. Sears on early walkers vs late walkers...

Let me first say that Dr. Sears' Baby Book is one of many that I
bought before my baby was ever born -- along with a set of What to
Expect books: When you're expecting and the First Year...(yawn for
those two) Anyway, while I have found that attached parenting is not
for us (most of it anyway) I have found Dr. Sears' actual clinical and
medical advice to be very useful and similar to our Ped's advice.
Some of his 'opinions' I could take or leave but whatever.

As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

My concern is not whether my son going to be more cautious or more
impulsive -- I was just wondering if any of you have found either of
these things to be true. He goes on to say that there is no definite
profile on early walkers that they *do* tend to be more high-needs
babies. And then basically says that babies who are the product of
attachment style parenting and gives the example of a baby worn in a
sling many hours a day often show more advanced motor skills.

I guess what I am asking is if this is true in general or if it is
just another way for him to use his opinions (instead of actual
research) to skew towards Attachment Parenting.

Lastly let me state that I am NOT against attachment parenting, it was
just not for us and that my son is just 8 months and is not walking so
obviously he's not early or late -- I was just curious if anyone could
validate this for me either way.

TIA!



Carla
Mom to Victor 5.16.04
www.victorpictures.com --see him here

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:22:05 GMT, carla wrote:
As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

I have never read that, but it is true in my case. The early
walking=impulsive/high needs and accident prone.
Marie

My concern is not whether my son going to be more cautious or more
impulsive -- I was just wondering if any of you have found either of
these things to be true.

My DD walked on the early side, at 9 months, but she was definitely not a
high-needs baby. I'd say, based on what I've heard other people say, and my
mom's experience with her own four children, that my DD was on the easy side
of average for a baby. Very content to be held, very social and not afraid
of strangers, good sleeper, generally very mellow and adapting easily to new
situations, but also not a "velcro" baby -- generally we could set her down,
with some toys to chew on, and she'd be happy for a while. As a toddler,
she's very active and busy, and she is generally not extremely cautious. I
think that's more personality, though, than physical -- everything is a
grand adventure to her, a stranger is a friend she hasn't met yet, if it's
new and different that means it's exciting and she's going to go experience
and explore it to the fullest extent she possibly can, etc.

And then basically says that babies who are the product of
attachment style parenting and gives the example of a baby worn in a
sling many hours a day often show more advanced motor skills.

My DD was generally held and/or slung for many hours a day, and I've heard
this theory as well, that they show more advanced motor skills. I'm not
really sure it's true though; I've also heard that babies who are held/worn
a lot have slower motor skills. I do believe very much in the benefits of
holding/wearing a baby a lot, and I generally do think AP is a pretty good
way to raise a child, but I also don't think it's the cure-all for
everything, nor that it guarantees a particular type of baby. If your child
is shy as a toddler, people will say that's because he/she's properly
attached to Mommy, but otoh, if your child is outgoing, people will say
that's because he/she's properly attached to Mommy and feels comfortable
exploring from his/her safe base. I don't really think that AP is going to
change a shy child into an outgoing one, nor an outgoing one into a shy one.


I guess what I am asking is if this is true in general or if it is
just another way for him to use his opinions (instead of actual
research) to skew towards Attachment Parenting.

I generally like Dr. Sears, but I personally think he does try to skew
everything towards AP. I think his "7 Baby B's" are great, and I think
there are a lot of benefits to them, but I got a bit annoyed when I was
reading his book _The Successful Child_, and the entire beginning was about
how great AP was and how you ought to do that with your child, etc., etc.
Which is great, except that I don't care for the idea that if your birth
bonding wasn't spectacular or whatever, your child is going to suffer a
distant second best as an older child. I just think it's probably not that
simplistic.


--
-Sara
Mommy to DD, 2 3/4
And Someone Due 2/05
Lastly let me state that I am NOT against attachment parenting, it was
just not for us and that my son is just 8 months and is not walking so
obviously he's not early or late -- I was just curious if anyone could
validate this for me either way.

TIA!



Carla
Mom to Victor 5.16.04
www.victorpictures.com --see him here

carla wrote:


As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

Can you tell me what is early or late?
I think my son was about average...perhaps such kids have no personality
at all...LOL!

Actually, I'd say he was a demanding rather than high needs baby, never
one to entertain himself but equally able to focus on something for a
length of time ie in the middle of the spectrum.

Mary Ann

"carla" wrote in message
As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

My youngest daughter walked at 10 months and yes she was and is a high-needs
child. She is the daring one out of the three. So she fits the profile. She
is not accident prone though. DD1 and DD2 walked at the average age of 12
months and they are fairly cautious and careful. They are also easygoing
kids. DD1 is accident prone.

And then basically says that babies who are the product of
attachment style parenting and gives the example of a baby worn in a
sling many hours a day often show more advanced motor skills.

I personally disagree with this. If the baby is worn 24/7, they don't have a
chance to build up their muscles to be able to advance in motor skills.
Babies need to have a chance to be on the floor and work different muscles.
Maybe babies in slings have better head control, but IMO that would be about
it. Being in a sling for many hours a day seems very uncomfortable to me and
my legs would hurt after a while with the sling cutting into their legs.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

carla wrote:
As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"


Here's my anecdotal evidence: my son was not an early walker - started
at 14months (is 18months now), and was/is a high-needs, velcro baby, but
also is very careful/cautious, but I would not say he is very good at
self-entertaining.

I would classify my parenting as moderately AP.




Let me first say that Dr. Sears' Baby Book is one of many that I
bought before my baby was ever born -- along with a set of What to
Expect books: When you're expecting and the First Year...(yawn for
those two) Anyway, while I have found that attached parenting is not
for us (most of it anyway) I have found Dr. Sears' actual clinical and
medical advice to be very useful and similar to our Ped's advice.
Some of his 'opinions' I could take or leave but whatever.



My concern is not whether my son going to be more cautious or more
impulsive -- I was just wondering if any of you have found either of
these things to be true. He goes on to say that there is no definite
profile on early walkers that they *do* tend to be more high-needs
babies. And then basically says that babies who are the product of
attachment style parenting and gives the example of a baby worn in a
sling many hours a day often show more advanced motor skills.

I guess what I am asking is if this is true in general or if it is
just another way for him to use his opinions (instead of actual
research) to skew towards Attachment Parenting.

Lastly let me state that I am NOT against attachment parenting, it was
just not for us and that my son is just 8 months and is not walking so
obviously he's not early or late -- I was just curious if anyone could
validate this for me either way.

TIA!



Carla
Mom to Victor 5.16.04
www.victorpictures.com --see him here

--
http://home.comcast.net/~thepumpkinman
reverse the domain name to email me

carla wrote:

As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

Our first son was a very early walker, he was walking quite well before
9 months old. He was also a very big baby--nearly 10 pounds at
birth--and ahead in all of his physical skills (reaching out, sitting
up, etc.) He also slept through the night at a very young age, was
easily entertained, happy, and in no way could he be considered a "high
needs" baby. He was not accident prone. His younger brother walked
later, but still somewhat early--well before his first birthday. He,
though, was a climber--before he could walk he would climb onto the
back of the couch, the kitchen counter, the table. He was definitely
more accident prone and more "needy" and "clingy." I nursed the
younger boy until he was 2.5 years old, his older brother was weaned at
about 8 months.

So, all in all, I find no support for Sears' theory in my own kids!
Chris

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, carla wrote:

As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

Yup. DH and DD walked by 10 months. Both are high need, impulsive and not
terribly coordinated. DH never crawled and has some dyslexia. DD did
crawl, with one leg folded in front of the other much of the time.

I learned to walk around 16 months. I would sit on the floor with a
string for an hour.

And then basically says that babies who are the product of
attachment style parenting and gives the example of a baby worn in a
sling many hours a day often show more advanced motor skills.

I think any improved advanced motor skills could be for the same reason as
how breastfeeding in general is supposed to be better for the kid
intellectually, etc. They are more tactily stimulated so may develop more
whole-body consciousness. Or something like that.

carla wrote:

As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves.

Both mine walked at 12-13 months.

Hunter: was very cautious. He walked slowly and cautiously and didn't run
until he was much older. He remains careful. He was a high maintenance
baby and a content toddler but did not entertain himself well until he was
about 4. He will move on if something doesn't seem to be working out.

Luke: more impulsive. He went from walking to running quickly and didn't
give much thought to his safety. He remains impulsive but not overly so.
He was an easy baby. He was a turbulent toddler....definitely not content
with toddlerdom. He's getting better as he enters the preschool age. He is
persistent and determined.

--
Nikki

carla wrote:

Let me first say that Dr. Sears' Baby Book is one of many that I
bought before my baby was ever born -- along with a set of What to
Expect books: When you're expecting and the First Year...(yawn for
those two) Anyway, while I have found that attached parenting is not
for us (most of it anyway) I have found Dr. Sears' actual clinical and
medical advice to be very useful and similar to our Ped's advice.
Some of his 'opinions' I could take or leave but whatever.

As far as walking goes he basically says that babies that walk early
on are more impulsive and high-needs and that late walkers are more
likely to be more careful, content and entertain themselves. Also
that "Early and impulsive walkers are often more accident prone than
their more cautious walking mates"

My DD walked at 11 months. She was probably a pretty easy baby,
although being my first didn't seem so! She was usually content
to be held, but usually wanted to be held. She never crawled. I
wouldn't call her high-needs, but she wasn't really one to entertain
herself either. She wasn't particularly accident prone.

My sister's son walked at 9 months. Again, I don't know if I'd
call him high needs but he is extremely inquisitive and active
(he's 2 years now). And smart. He'll get into everything and
loves to take things apart. He has been very challenging for her
and makes my two girls look easy as pie!

Both my sister and I wore our babies a bit, not in slings but
in bjorns and backpacks. Both of us did extended nursing (2 years),
but I wouldn't classify either of us as having a strong attachment
parenting style (although we both have coselpt out of necessity, lousy
sleepers all!).

Mary W.