Spinoff of "I don't want to let dd CIO"

marina

Thu, May 12 2011, 8:06 am

Barbara wrote:

marina wrote:

Quote:

Are they traumatized? Yes, I think they are

Barbara, you and I are women who appreciate data and logic. So, in that spirit, please provide some data to support this strong assertion. For example, maybe some peer reviewed articles demonstrating that regular old CIO (not abusive, I-left-my-child-and-the-rats-bit-him type) causes long term damage of any sort.

High correlation through a well designed study is good enough, I know causation is not going to be possible to show.

Or that CIO causes trauma, although I'm not sure how you would measure that in a 9 month old, maybe some sort of high correlation to delay in reaching major milestones or something.

Sequoia, you too. Actually anyone, please feel free to find some peer-reviewed articles in respected journals that show high correlation in a statistically valid study between CIO ( typical not crazy) and any effects that last longer than the few days that CIO training requires.

BTW, I have made this request in the past and have not received anything, if I recall correctly.

Here you go. I have to work on an Office Action this morning, but I can find more later on if you'd like.

http://www.askdrsears.com/html.....2.asp

The top of your link begins as follows:

Quote:

Is it therefore possible that infants who endure many nights or weeks of crying-it-out alone are actually suffering harmful neurologic effects that may have permanent implications on the development of sections of their brain?

So let's review what CIO means, because Dr. Sears, it seems is using a different definition.

CIO means that for 3-4 days mommy does not pick up baby no matter how long baby cries between the hours of 11pm and 5 am. Baby is well fed and changed before bedtime and then is placed in crib and the next time mommy comes in the room is at 5 am. This process is done for 3-4 days and is never done for "many nights or weeks" at a time.

The studies that he cites, I am guessing, are all about the crazy CIO moms who generally neglect their children during the day as well as at night. This is research done on I-left-my-baby-to-be-bitten-by-rodents-while-my-druggie-friends-and-I-snorted-cocaine families. And yeah, chances are that those kids are going to have problems.

I will try and see if I can track down a few of the actual studies to cite the language.

Barbara

Thu, May 12 2011, 8:20 am

marina wrote:

Barbara wrote:

marina wrote:

Quote:

Are they traumatized? Yes, I think they are

Here you go. I have to work on an Office Action this morning, but I can find more later on if you'd like.

http://www.askdrsears.com/html.....2.asp

The top of your link begins as follows:

Quote:

Actually, the article begins:

Quote:

Science tells us that when babies cry alone and unattended, they experience panic and anxiety. Their bodies and brains are flooded with adrenaline and cortisol stress hormones. Science has also found that when developing brain tissue is exposed to these hormones for prolonged periods these nerves won’t form connections to other nerves and will degenerate.

It then asks the question that you quote -- what is the impact of these findings.

The article goes on:

Quote:

Research has shown that infants who are routinely separated from parents in a stressful way have abnormally high levels of the stress hormone cortisol, as well as lower growth hormone levels. These imbalances inhibit the development of nerve tissue in the brain, suppress growth, and depress the immune system. 5, 9, 11, 16

Researchers at Yale University and Harvard Medical School found that intense stress early in life can alter the brain’s neurotransmitter systems and cause structural and functional changes in regions of the brain similar to those seen in adults with depression. 17

One study showed infants who experienced persistent crying episodes were 10 times more likely to have ADHD as a child, along with poor school performance and antisocial behavior. The researchers concluded these findings may be due to the lack of responsive attitude of the parents toward their babies. 14.

nb -- not sure if that conclusion is correct. It may be that babies with ADHD are more prone to crying.

Quote:

Infant developmental specialist Dr. Michael Lewis presented research findings at an American Academy of Pediatrics meeting, concluding that “the single most important influence of a child’s intellectual development is the responsiveness of the mother to the cues of her baby.”

Researchers have found babies whose cries are usually ignored will not develop healthy intellectual and social skills. 19

Dr. Rao and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health showed that infants with prolonged crying (but not due to colic) in the first 3 months of life had an average IQ 9 points lower at 5 years of age. They also showed poor fine motor development. (2)

Researchers at Pennsylvania State and Arizona State Universities found that infants with excessive crying during the early months showed more difficulty controlling their emotions and became even fussier when parents tried to consol them at 10 months. 15

Quote:

Dr. Brazy at Duke University and Ludington-Hoe and colleagues at Case Western University showed in 2 separate studies how prolonged crying in infants causes increased blood pressure in the brain, elevates stress hormones, obstructs blood from draining out of the brain, and decreases oxygenation to the brain. They concluded that caregivers should answer cries swiftly, consistently, and comprehensively. (3) and (4)

Unless you can demonstrate that each and every one of these studies was conducted on babies who were not fed of changed for days on end, but rather completely ignored (and we KNOW that's not the case, because it would be unethical to conduct studies in that manner), then we know its children who are left for periods akin to CIO.

You're also creating this straw man world in which babies who are left to cry for a couple of nights automatically become wonderful sleepers. First of all, your suggestion -- leaving them to cry for several nights, is dismissed by Ferber himself as inappropriate. Second, while a small number of babies may react that way, most don't.

You asked for research. You got it. Definitive evidence of chemical changes. Now disprove it.

marina

Thu, May 12 2011, 8:59 am

The second article cited discusses colic and concludes that

Quote:

Excessive, uncontrolled crying that persists beyond 3 months of age in infants without other signs of neurological damage may be a marker for cognitive deficits during childhood. Such infants need to be examined and followed up more intensively

. Nothing do with CIO.

The third article seems to be about comparing oxygen levels in crying healthy infants to crying infants with respiratory disorders, also nothing to do with CIO.

The 14th article is also about colicky babies whose parents complained to their pediatricians. Dr. Sears says that " One study showed infants who experienced persistent crying episodes were 10 times more likely to have ADHD as a child, along with poor school performance and antisocial behavior. The researchers concluded these findings may be due to the lack of responsive attitude of the parents toward their babies." But the article is really quite different and concludes that there are many possible reasons, one of them being that colicky babies are more likely to be seen as difficult and this makes parenting them more challenging... not quite the same as saying parents who don't respond to their children's crying will make them all ADHD, is it?

Basically, a lot of those articles are either old or about colicky babies or I can't find them to read the whole thing. Dr. Sears is pushing his own views and manipulating the research to serve him. Sorry.

Barbara

Thu, May 12 2011, 9:16 am

marina wrote:

The second article cited discusses colic and concludes that

Quote:

Well, these articles certainly aren't about neglected babies, as you originally stated.

Sears isn't manipulating results or evidence. He's extrapolating from it -- research demonstrates that here is an adverse physiological impact from crying. Ergo, when you allow your baby to cry for long periods, s/he will experience an adverse physiological impact. Do you have anything to suggest that the physiological response to excessive crying differs based upon the cause of the crying. Eg, to suggest that cortisol is produced when babies cry due to colic, but not when they cry because their parents have decided to let them cry alone in a crib?

HindaRochel

Thu, May 12 2011, 9:37 am

marina wrote:

http://www.infantsleep.org/home.html

There is very little research on CIO, actually. Most of the studies are about other stuff. Namely colic.

This is true. But would you or would you not agree that crying is a sign of stress? And simply the cessation of crying does not necessarily mean the stress is gone, merely that the crying doesn't elicit parental response...it ceases because it is unproductive. Thus, the stress may continue, unabated and untreated.

A baby cries because they have no other language. If you are speaking about a child who can talk, letting them cry occasionally because they are throwing a tantrum won't hurt... they have other means and methods and the job of a parent is to help them speak or explain their pain, fear, anger, confusion. I'm not always os good at that honestly, but that is the job.

But a baby can only cry. So they cry. Answering their cry, making sure they aren't hungry, or feeling ill or scared or lonely helps them adjust to this new world. They do not have adult brains, though they are absorbing information more readily than we realize; but they aren't necessarily understanding what they learn.

I don't think CIO is productive in the long run. They are babies for a short period of time; we aren't talking about going into a tantruming toddler who just doesn't want to go to bed now. We are speaking of a child who only knows the language of crying and only really understands comfort and pain.

marina

Thu, May 12 2011, 10:16 am

Quote:

Do you have anything to suggest that the physiological response to excessive crying differs based upon the cause of the crying. Eg, to suggest that cortisol is produced when babies cry due to colic, but not when they cry because their parents have decided to let them cry alone in a crib?

Excessive crying can be caused by a third factor... which would then also cause the higher cortisol levels and the colic or/and whatever other effects are correlated. Basically imagine a child born with a very painful condition. The child cries all the time. Then we observe a group of these children and decide that crying all the time is painful and therefore, no one ever should let their child cry. That is how I see Dr. Sear's conclusions.

A very tightly-controlled study would need to be done to make the leap that you are making and those studies have not, to my knowledge, been done. You would need to compare babies (from stable homes with no pre-existing problems) in the second half of their first year who were left for 3-4 nights to cry it out with infants in similar homes who co-slept instead.

Quote:

But would you or would you not agree that crying is a sign of stress? And simply the cessation of crying does not necessarily mean the stress is gone, merely that the crying doesn't elicit parental response...it ceases because it is unproductive. Thus, the stress may continue, unabated and untreated.

You can't have it both ways Smile

You can't claim to know that crying is a sign of stress and then also claim that cessation of crying is not cessation of stress.

Look, if I have an infant, I want that baby to learn that crying between the hours of 11pm and 5 am is unproductive. The infant's capacity to remember this point is very limited and will only start at about 6-7 months of age. So before that time, I just have to deal. But after the baby is 6-7 months, there is no reason not to teach the baby this lesson: mommy is not available for those six hours at night and you should just be quiet. A baby will usually learn this within 3-4 days. And I have seen no evidence that shows that this traumatizes the child or that the stress continues past the CIO time.

So if I pick up my child at 5 am and he has been crying for several hours, the stress would still continue, even though now my kid is happy in my arms? I find that hard to believe, because then that means that stress would continue past any amount of crying and we mustn't let baby cry at all, lest she continue to be stressed out and develop ADHD later in life or not be attached securely or whatever.

HindaRochel

Thu, May 12 2011, 10:01 pm

Quote:

You can't have it both ways Smile

You can't claim to know that crying is a sign of stress and then also claim that cessation of crying is not cessation of stress.

Yes you can. Crying is a sign that a child is undergoing stress. Lack of crying does not necessarily indicate the stress has ended, any more than screaming not screaming darn when one hits one toe means there is no pain. It simply means that the child learns crying won't relieve the stress. That may be good or not if the child learns to relieve the stress another way. However, there is no indication that a child who cannot speak, clearly state their needs so the parent can decide; "S/he is scared/lonely/sad/angry/hungry/sick, how can I best help her to be unafraid/less lonely/less angry/sated/comforted and healthy?" With a child who can talk and with whom one can communicate, that might mean "It is time for bed. Mommy needs sleep and so do you. If you can't sleep you can tell yourself stories, but mommy is not going to play with you now..."

Quote:

Look, if I have an infant, I want that baby to learn that crying between the hours of 11pm and 5 am is unproductive. The infant's capacity to remember this point is very limited and will only start at about 6-7 months of age. So before that time, I just have to deal. But after the baby is 6-7 months, there is no reason not to teach the baby this lesson: mommy is not available for those six hours at night and you should just be quiet. A baby will usually learn this within 3-4 days. And I have seen no evidence that shows that this traumatizes the child or that the stress continues past the CIO time.

What happens to your child at 6-7 months that you feel they can CIO for several hours that they couldn't a month before? If you were to say "once I can talk to my child and know my child understands then I feel comfortable in not answering their cries immediately..." well that makes sense. But to say "Well here's this time when it is okay..." why? And I have seen it not work and I have seen it take much longer than 3-4 days and that is why I started taking my oldest into bed with me and NOT letting her cry it out. Precisely because I saw the harm.

Quote:

So if I pick up my child at 5 am and he has been crying for several hours, the stress would still continue, even though now my kid is happy in my arms? I find that hard to believe, because then that means that stress would continue past any amount of crying and we mustn't let baby cry at all, lest she continue to be stressed out and develop ADHD later in life or not be attached securely or whatever

.

Since I think if you pick your child up and offer the child comfort you are relieving the stress, the answer is no. The comfort and care is what relieves the stress. You feel good about what you do and that is fine; I think that until a child can learn and understand what they need and how to express it and how to help themselves attain the _________ that the parent needs to supply it for them.

All I'm stating is that the lack of crying means the child no longer reacts to stress BY crying...but that doesn't mean the stress has ended, or that the child is learning to cope. They are simply learning NOT to cry.

marina

Fri, May 13 2011, 6:01 am

Quote:

What happens is the development of memory, a child can remember that crying is not as useful as sucking his thumb and going back to sleep if he wakes up. If CIO takes longer than 3-4 days, I would stop and try again in a few months.

Quote:

All I'm stating is that the lack of crying means the child no longer reacts to stress BY crying...but that doesn't mean the stress has ended, or that the child is learning to cope. They are simply learning NOT to cry.

I think we all read about these horrible orphanages in Russia or wherever and we think about those poor kids who are silent because they have learned not to cry and their basic needs are not met and they just sit there silently all day and then we try to extrapolate from that to our own situation. But it's not the same. If the child were to learn NOT to cry as you said, the child would not cry during the day either and not be able to express his needs at all, ever. That would be a real problem and one that I have never seen with my kids, even though they all went through CIO. In fact, I've not heard of anyone who practiced typical CIO whose children stopped crying during the day and just sat there like motionless rag dolls, the way orphanage babies do. It's entirely different. A baby who lives in a loving home whose needs are generally met can usually handle 6 hours of not being held.

HindaRochel

Fri, May 13 2011, 6:25 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

.

Yes, the child learns that crying isn't useful, that is my point, but they don't necessarily learn that the thumb answers the question. They use the thumb instead of obtaining the answer to whatever their need is. Sometimes they use rocking or other self-soothing techniques.

Many times I think this is why a child who has been sleep trained suddenly starts, when they can walk and talk, coming into mommy and daddy's room or calling for water or whatever. They haven't learned to deal with the problems themselves, they are too young at 6mns or 7mns to really grasp what is going on, how long time lasts etc. etc. As they get older and can communicate you can talk with the child. THEN you can explain what is going on.

Quote:

marina wrote:

My kids never cried that much during the day or the night, only if something was wrong. If they were hungry, hurt, angry, confused, scared. If you didn't come to them during the day the would learn not to cry during the day as well; if someone ignored them during the day but not at night would you think that was ok? What difference would it make if the child is ignored during the day or the night? You are simply cutting the night as a time of the 24 day when a child might need you and access you by crying.

Last edited by HindaRochel on Fri, May 13 2011, 6:34 am; edited 1 time in total

gryp

Fri, May 13 2011, 6:32 am

I thought CIO was the right thing to do with my oldest. That's what a good mother is supposed to do, right? Let the child cry until he learns. I didn't want to be weak-hearted or a sissy. Too bad I was such a fool. CIO "worked" for about 2 weeks and then he'd start to scream again. And so I did it again, and again. He was about 8 months old and I was basically dealing with constant crying because every few weeks I'd have to do CIO again.

Finally, something clicked in my brain, and instead of ignoring him, I went to be with him as he was crying. I saw his face- and I knew he was in horrible emotional pain. He was trying to tell me that he needed me and I had stupidly sat there and closed my ears.

That ended CIO forever for us. I took him into my bed and every morning thereafter I woke up to the biggest, most beautiful smile from him. There was no doubt in my mind I was doing the right thing. When people I knew heard about him sleeping in my bed, they thought I was nuts. I didn't care though, I didn't need their opinions.

Now we're 7 years down the road, and my son has severe anxiety. I'm not saying that CIO is the cause of it, but as an infant, there was no recognizable signs of any anxiety at all in him, except during those crying periods.

I have 4 other kids and every single one of them, when I had to let them cry in their crib (meaning I was busy at the moment and couldn't attend to them right away), the crying only worked them up so much that they were unable to relax again. If I wanted them to go back to sleep, I needed to catch them on their first cry before they woke up too much.

My babies stay in my room until about 13 months when I move their crib out. At about 2.5 years old they find their way back to my room until about age 4-5.That's when they're old enough to handle nightmares on their own and don't need me anymore.

amother

Sat, May 14 2011, 9:58 pm

grip wrote:

Thanks for sharing. I was very touched by your post. For a mom to realize whats best for her child & change the way she thinks...wow!

amother

Sun, May 15 2011, 9:59 am

marina wrote:

Barbara wrote:

marina wrote:

Quote:

Are they traumatized? Yes, I think they are

Here you go. I have to work on an Office Action this morning, but I can find more later on if you'd like.

http://www.askdrsears.com/html.....2.asp

The top of your link begins as follows:

Quote:

I suppose I shouldn't knock the CIO method because I do have friends who have done it with their kids, been happy with the results, and their kids seem every bit as normal as anyone else's. So to each their own.

I could never do it though. What if the baby poops at 11:05 PM? That poor baby is going to be left to cry until it exhaustedly falls asleep in it's filth? Or what if the baby wakes up hungry at 2 AM? So what if the baby was full at 11 PM? Now at 2 AM the baby is hungry and miserable.

I understand the baby wont starve to death if it wakes hungry and has to wait a couple hours. I understand the baby wont contract a disease sleeping in a dirty diaper a few hours. But I personally could never feel good allowing this to happen when it could so easily be avoided. I'm s SAHM. Taking care of my children is my F/T job. I couldn't ignore them and feel justified.