With all the statements being made by so many about sleep training, most to get parents to get on board, parents should know that most of these statements are myths, not backed by science.
Many people report trying extinction methods of sleep training to "help" their baby sleep better, but what does research tell us in terms of the efficacy of these methods for baby's sleep? Does the reasoning hold up?
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?
I get a lot of people angry that I speak out against extinction sleep training because it "worked" for them. I thought I'd start a post that allows me to respond publicly to these criticisms so I don't have to repeat myself over and over.
Parents often worry that their child isn't getting the magical number of hours of sleep. New research suggests we can ditch the idea that there is a magical number for it doesn't seem to influence outcomes at all.
The dismissal of the importance of a rise in cortisol on the developing brain is very popular with extinction sleep training apologists. Although we do not know the exact influences, there are reasons to be cautious of this dismissal, which ignores key evolutionary and biological information.
A piece is making the rounds claiming that sleep training is a feminist issue. I think it is too, just not the way the original author believes.
The premise behind extinction sleep training is that infants (and toddlers) are being taught to "self-soothe"; however, this ignores key points of what self-soothing abilities can be expected from children and how distressed they are at the time of separation. Instead of focusing on these extinction methods, gentler methods that respect where the child is developmentally should be considered.