“Responsive Settling”: Is it Responsive? Effective?
New research suggests a method of "responsive settling" actually can improve infant sleep as well as extinction methods. Is this wholly accurate?
New research suggests a method of "responsive settling" actually can improve infant sleep as well as extinction methods. Is this wholly accurate?
New research is making the rounds claiming that there are no negative effects to controlled crying, and the press is lapping it up. The question is: Does the claim hold up?
When you talk about stress and sleep training, you often get two polarized views: Either the stress is so great it has to cause irreparable harm or it's fine or even beneficial. Yet neither really captures the whole story.
New research looks at cortisol patterns in infants, toddlers, and children as they adapt to new daycare situations. The findings aren't encouraging, but should be considered in the larger framework of research on child care.
Here is a summary of what Evolutionary Parenting stands for. In short, it’s the idea that the way in which we as humans (and other mammals) have parented over hundreds of thousands of years (i.e., the way we’ve EVOLVED to parent) is intricately related to the well-being of our children.
The system we have adhered to as a society puts the onus of do no harm on those who are acting. If you want to act against what we know to be what infants need and are asking for, namely responsiveness, should it not be you who has to prove no harm?
Recently an article has made the rounds on various news sources stating that co-sleeping has negative effects for mom, but a closer look at the research suggests that this is not all what it seems.
You see, the person questioned the conclusions from the Middlemiss study which found high cortisol activity in children undergoing a sleep training program in New Zealand. This is my response.
My response to the ever popular CIO argument of: "My baby just gets overtired and needs to cry to get all that extra energy out before she sleeps."