The following was printed in an article in the Daily Mail when discussing how one UK politician decided to take on Gina Ford, claiming her methods were “absolute nonsense”:
Source: The Daily Mail
Given Ms. Ford hasn’t taken the Daily Mail to task and this fits with what I have read more generally on her methods (albeit in earlier books), so I can only imagine she finds this a good (or at least decent) representation of her methods (if not, then she should take issue with the Daily Mail, and should happily agree with what I’m going to write about these rules – note: the idea that the problem is with the Daily Mail when Ms. Ford is notorious for taking issue with any slight against her work seems off to me, but I accept that some people actively feel this is not a good representation of her work because they *selectively* used her methods and my own reading of her site and earlier version of book supports these “rules”). I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Clegg on his views of Ms. Ford’s work and provide you with a bit of background as to why these specific rules are not only “nonsense”, but when taken literally and without consideration for your baby, may quite possibly be dangerous to your baby’s well-being. I also want to add that these rules are not just Ms. Ford’s, but are representative of a lot of “baby training” rules that parents implement when told to by so-called experts. As such, they deserve a good review for parents who want to know more about the science behind these recommendations.
Rule #1: Put your baby to sleep in its own room from day one.
Note: I have been informed that this rule has been updated in newer versions of her book; however, online she states, “Getting your baby settled into his own room sooner rather than later can help you avoid disrupting and unsettling him at some stage down the line when he is used to being in your room” and admits that she mentions in the book that most families simply have their baby sleep in the room with them, *not* that this is her recommendation.
This counters the current medical knowledge and mounds of research (e.g., [1][2][3]) that have found that putting babies in their own rooms at a young age increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Yes, rule number one increases the risk of death for your child. Why is this? We don’t fully know, but it seems that work by Dr. James McKenna and colleagues would suggest it has to do with the regulatory function of adults on infant physiology (e.g., [4][5]). That is, infants can struggle to regulate things like their blood pressure, heart rate, and even breathing, and close proximity to an adult has a huge effect on their regulation; we adults are truly helping their little bodies learn how to function.
Better Rule? Keep your baby close at night. Medical recommendations are to have your child in their own sleep space in your room within arms reach, but some babies require even more contact in which case you should look into bedsharing safely.
Rule #2: Feed your baby to a strict timetable, and only feed it at the allotted times
Note: Some have mentioned that you can feed your baby in between scheduled times in newer books, but then this makes no sense to me as to why you’d have a schedule at all. At that point, just feed your baby when s/he’s hungry. My fear with the remaining mention of a schedule is that many parents read a schedule and even with a caveat, they try to stick to that schedule at the detriment of their baby. Indeed, as Ms. Ford states on her website, “Any healthy baby weighing more than 6lbs at birth should manage to go three hours between feeds, three hours being from the beginning of a feed to the beginning of the next feed”, suggesting that this inability to follow such a schedule is possibly detrimental which is, in fact, not true. Many healthy, happy babies require feeding more than every 3 hours.
Feeding to a schedule used to be the norm a few decades ago… until they discovered it was associated with a host of unwelcome outcomes for babies. Babies who are fed on schedule instead have been found to show cognitive deficits later in life[6], failure to gain weight in the first week of life and greater weight loss in the first week[7][8], higher likelihood of developing jaundice[8][9], and most seriously can result in failure to thrive[10] thanks to inadequate intake of breastmilk leading to dehydration and malnutrition[11] relative to their peers who are fed on demand. Scheduled feeds also influence the duration of breastfeeding, with scheduled feeds resulting in a shorter breastfeeding duration[12][13].
Better Rule? Feed your baby on demand. When your baby is hungry, feed him or her, because your baby knows how much milk s/he needs more than you do. We don’t know when they start growth spurts, if they are actually getting enough at each feed to last hours (if they are, they will last a few hours), or if they just need some comfort. Feeding on-cue is a responsive style of parenting that benefits baby beyond just nutritionally.
Rule #3: Do not let your baby sleep past 7 a.m.
I can only assume this is to get your baby on a “schedule” sleep-wise as well; however, there is no evidence this is healthy at all. In fact, what we do know about sleep would suggest that this type of intervention is not helpful for the developing circadian rhythm. Why? Well, let’s start with the idea that research shows that disrupted waking (i.e., not waking naturally) decreases an infant’s ability to arouse[14] which is linked to greater SIDS risk. Second, sleep disruption in infancy is also linked to abnormal cardiac effects linked to SIDS[15]. Sleep scheduling more generally is also associated with a greater risk of crying in infancy and three times the risk of behavioural problems at six months of age[16]. Furthermore, infants don’t have the same circadian rhythm as we do and thus cannot be expected to wake at the same time as us and sleep at the same; in fact, their circadian rhythm can take up to 9 months to fully develop[17] and is intricately linked to other factors[18].
Better rule? Let your baby sleep on cue. If your baby is close to you at most times, chances are your baby will develop a circadian rhythm close to your own. But even if not, at least for the first 6-8 months your baby will be at a reduced risk for SIDS and isn’t that worth it?
Rule #4: Ensure your baby sleeps in a very dark and quiet room
Note: As mentioned above, this rule is echoed online on Ms. Ford’s page and thus seems to be a good representation. Indeed she supports this even when a reader questions it given the current SIDS recommendations.
This is one of those “common sense” ideas that have been passed down in our Western, modern society and yet doesn’t hold much water historically or scientifically. Historically babies nap while wrapped to mom (or another caregiver) and learns to make do without very dark or quiet rooms. Now, granted, historically society has not been as loud or as bright as ours is currently, but the fact remains that baby is close in proximity to their caregiver and learns to sleep “on the go” so as to allow caregiver to continue doing what s/he needs to do. As I have written elsewhere, this can lead to later problematic behaviours as caregivers become trapped to the house for frequent naptimes with a child unable to sleep elsewhere and can resent the child for this behaviour; notably, some babies do need this type of environment, but they are not the “norm” but should be given the utmost consideration. However, scientifically speaking, sleeping in a dark and quiet room during the day it has been associated with poorer sleep habits overall as it inhibits the consolidation of nighttime sleep and reduces the caregiver’s ability to develop a healthy biorhythm with the infant (see [16] for a review).
Better rule? See what sleep environment fits your child. Most children will be okay sleeping in a variety of environments, freeing caregivers up to move around and continue their lives. Some children will require this type of quiet and non-stimulating environment and that’s okay. The key is to follow your child.
***
If you are in need of individualized parenting help, I offer services via email, Skype, and phone on a variety of parenting topics. You can find out more here.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve always felt uncomfortable with Ford’s methods – they go against every mother/baby instinct, which can never be a good thing.
Clearly this woman never read her book properly. Gina Ford never actually says any of this is an absolute, she never actually advocates forcing anything. I found her book really helpful and I had happy babies that thrived and were calm. Some days babies need cuddling to sleep, so you do it, she would never suggest that you don’t do something that your baby needs. She would never say not to feed your baby when it’s hungry, I think some people get too hung up on the golden rules and think that’s what it’s all about.
But therein is the problem. When you write “golden rules” that’s what people focus on and not the nuances that exist between babies. If you’re writing a book with no rules, it looks a LOT different than one with rules. Furthermore, as I said in the article, if the Daily Mail didn’t portray her well, she (and those that read her book) should have no problem with what I wrote. In fact, you should support it, yes?
Totally untrue for points 1,2,5 &7.
Gina does not say any of this at all. Why make up these therefore things in order to write an article and scare and confuse new mums even more than they already are??
I didn’t make up any of it – it was clearly laid out in another article. And as others have said they actually are in older versions of her book. Regardless, they are pieces of advice that are very much out there in the public eye!
Now, how is this article “scaring and confusing new mums even more than they already are”? How is providing scientific information scaring parents?
This article appears to be a response to the Daily Mail’s rather weak interpretation of Gina Ford’s methods, rather than a response to a reading of GF’s books. I think you should retitle is as such as it’s not really a useful critique of GF methods as it is, just a bit of reactionary ranting. Or perhaps read her books and user your skills to write a response to those.
In the GF books I’ve read, I’ve not come across any ‘golden rules’. What’s more, while that summary alludes to some of the approaches she uses it is presented out of the useful context of the book. Read the book fully and you will find an explanation of how to guide your baby towards a routine and an explanation of what GF’s book actually consitutes, ie. a description of the method she uses to keep the babies she looks after well fed and well rested. It’s certainly not a bible on parenting or even claiming to be The Right Way to do it. She wrote her books in response to parents who asked, “How do you manage to keep my baby settled? Explain exactly what you do, hour by hour.”
Additionally, to be fair to Gina, her most recent writings reference a lot of the recommendations and research you have mentioned here.
I think you are trying to make a valid point that all babies are different and, while GF’s book describes a very specific routine and a proactive approach to helping baby settle into that routine, you must also take account of the needs and peculiarities of each individual newborn baby and you may well find you just can’t or don’t want to force the issue. It is unfortunate that your point is undermined by the inaccurate title and the questionable logic of your opening statement:
“Given Ms. Ford hasn’t taken the Daily Mail to task, I can only imagine she finds this a good representation of her methods (if not, then she should take issue with the Daily Mail, and should happily agree with everything I’m going to write…”
Really?
I see your point, but it sounds like, from what you describe, she WOULD agree with what I wrote? In which case, the logic stands 😉
It’s people like you who totally ruined my early months when I had my daughter, I had spent years whilst trying to conceive, listening to your ill thought out vitrol of routine, and in particular, Gina Ford. Looking back, my daughter was the type of baby who would have done so well with a structured routine, but I fought tooth and nail against it because I thought that was “bad” and tried to be “baby led” (which in most cases isn’t really the case, it is people being parent led because they want to go out and about when they choose to, including staying out in the evening, even at the expense of their childs sleep-so they disguise it in calling it baby led). The result was that she was over tired and miserable, and so was I. It wasn’t until she was nearly a year old that I finally decided that I didn’t care if I wasn’t seen as baby led, I wanted to do what I thought was right for her, and got her into a routine, and the difference was amazing.
Please think carefully before spouting off how you know better than anybody else, if every baby is difference then that means Gina is right for some babies!
I don’t understand – routines are supported even in baby-led types of parenting. Schedules are very different. I’m sorry that you feel such anger over your experience, but it’s not that Gina Ford’s “golden rules” are right (and rules imply relevance for everyone), but that you should have been listening to your baby from day one. THAT’s baby-led – whether it includes a routine (not schedule) or not.
hi!
i breastfeed our 6 month baby on demand, never let him cry and we co sleep. he sleeps so well and its reassuring for all to have him close and safe. i can feed him and go straight back to sleep. no ones sleep (Apart from mine 😉 ) is disturbed – we also have an 8 year old daughter. baby led parenting isnt an excuse to go out and we’re in every night – it gives us at lease an extremely content, laid back and always smiling baby. i also carry him around in a sling. hes also happy in his baby swing when im getting on with housework or laying on a play mat. i could never let him cry himself to sleep ;( a lot of people read the daily mail (unfortunately) and are heavily influenced by the media. so even if GF doesnt say any of what is written in the mail in those exact words im sure more people read that paper than the actual book and believe what is written there!
at least that is meant to say!
[…] …..why they are not only “nonsense”, but quite possibly dangerous to your baby’s well-being. https://gku.flm.mybluehost.me/evolutionaryparenting.com/a-response-to-gina-fords-golden-rules/ […]
A response to the Daily Mail’s misrepresentation of Gina Fords ‘rules’. What’s the point in writing a response to something which is out of date, taken out of context and largely untrue (certainly misleading)?
Because these “rules” are common practices in today’s modern society – whether advocated for by Ms Ford or not.
I think you’re missing the point made by so many people here – it’s not that anyone disagrees with a lot of what you say, it’s the fact that you are using a factually incorrect article, written by a notoriously preposterous tabloid, to suggest that following Gina Ford’s method is dangerous. That is irresponsible and simply untrue.
I find it hard to believe you didn’t so much as browse GF’s website to see if there was any truth to the article.
The thing is: I HAVE looked into her methods and didn’t see anything that contradicted the general idea of the rules (and have had friends who tried the methods confirm it was, at least to their reading, quite spot on with the “golden rules”). I have updated the piece to reflect the change in co-sleeping recommendations made in newer versions of her book (the one at our library, in all fairness, is older). But what I really have written is why those 8 rules are dangerous and if people aren’t following them, why are they part of her technique? (Also, the BBC did a bit on her – not a preposterous tabloid – and came to very similar conclusions of her techniques.)
“I see your point, but it sounds like, from what you describe, she WOULD agree with what I wrote? In which case, the logic stands ;)”
While I do think that Gina might well agree with some of your points, that notion is in no way logically implied by the fact that she has not responded to the Daily Mail’s faulty representation of her writings.
I dunno – she made a point to publicly respond to one person’s thoughts on her work, but not a misrepresentation by a national paper?
“I dunno – she made a point to publicly respond to one person’s thoughts on her work, but not a misrepresentation by a national paper?”
One night read that as a measure of how worthy the Daily Mail is of a response. Again, if you want to write something helpful to parents, why not read Gina’s books and find out if this article is accurate and, when you understand why it’s not, wrote your response piece to the snot rag paper who published it?
Once you’d discovered that routine and baby-led parenting are not mutually exclusive (closer to the opposite?) and that in fact neither is GF’s approach contradictory to baby-led parenting, you’d probably be able to write an extremely useful piece explaining how to make use of parenting books without treating them like sacred texts and retaining a strong sense of your baby’s needs as you do.
And you could expose the Daily Fail for its dangerous misrepresentation in the process. (I think they ARE dangerous and so is this post, as another reader commented above) because they teach insecure parents to fear what might be useful texts and to feel like they might damage their baby by trying to help them into a routine which keeps them happy.)
After all, your article is about helping parents, not just rubbishing Gina Ford, right?
I actually advocate routines – not schedules though. However, there is a very clear distinction between the two. I’m sorry you feel this is a “dangerous” piece, but I would argue a text like any of those offered that provide a singular schedule (even with caveats) is dangerous to insecure parents. It takes a secure parent to take what works and modify it – an insecure one will follow to a tee and that is dangerous.
Here is more on schedules versus routines if you’re interested:
https://gku.flm.mybluehost.me/evolutionaryparenting.com/routines-vs-schedules/
https://gku.flm.mybluehost.me/evolutionaryparenting.com/educating-the-experts-lesson-five-schedules/
See, this is exactly the sort of thing that is worth discussing properly. If you read Gina’s routines as a schedule that must be followed and try to implement that on your baby regardless of their cues, you may well run into terrible trouble because babies are designed to work by their own clocks. (You might of course find it works perfectly for your particular baby, since her ideas are based on what she has observed with hundreds of babies.)
But these are my views. Let’s imagine you’re a new mum who feels completely lost, that your baby is overtired and unsettled and you just can’t work out his cues; you might have no-one around you to help.
At this point someone mentions Gina Ford to you and you think it sounds great. You might try and find that it fits for your particular baby – jackpot – or that is a battle and doesn’t feel right. But you’re a mum on your own so you hit up Google to see what people are saying about GF.
What do you find?
Maybe a good article from someone who thinks deeply about these things explaining why they feel you ought to tread very carefully with Gina and use the routines as a guide not a bible, why you mustn’t misinterpret her method as a set of ‘golden rules’. Now you feel empowered to give it a go armed with some useful information from the other side of the debate.
Perhaps you find a poorly titled article claiming to be a response to Gina Ford’s Golden Rules, It has an authoritative tone and sounds professional, citing respectable sources. It tells you in no uncertain terms that GF’s Golden Rules are harmful. Now you feel panicked and more than likely guilty for even considering doing that to your baby. Little do you know that those Golden Rules are a grossly inaccurate representation of GF’s method. Empowered? Not much. Just miseducated.
The web is unedited. Parents are vulnerable. Your voice is powerful. Please use it responsibly. At the very least check your facts and don’t undermine a good article with a wild disregard for those facts.
I do see your point here and have made a few caveats at the start. I will ponder this further; however, I will add that some of these ideas – even generally followed (i.e., not strictly) – may “work” in the wrong sense and that’s something parents need to consider as well. Just because a baby is not crying does not mean all is fine and in fact, some methods that keep babies from crying because they’ve realized they don’t have an active voice can result in serious problems when there is an underlying cause for wakings, frequent feedings, excessive crying, etc.
Now, one thing I had read when I did this was that THESE golden rules as written are harmful and to that I would never retract because they are and quite frankly they are out there and advocated for by many baby “experts”. So I would be curious as to what would need to change in the introduction in your opinion (not saying it will change though) to make this “better” for uneducated parents.
I understand what your trying to say and do. A natural approach to parenting is generally accepted as a correct one in most people’s eyes. I’m not a fan of the Gina ford method of parenting. However it does have some merit to second time parents who need a routine to guide second or third child into fitting into busy family life.
Personally I found Tracy hogg baby whisperer the most helpful and reassuring for my first time as a parent. But most of it is just plain old common sense.. I don’t think any method can be totally ignored because they all appear to have some use. Rather take note from different perspectives and choose what suits best for your own family and life course. The most important thing is not to slate people because they have theorys or ideas on how to raise children but rather commend them for trying and then assess if what they’re saying is relevant for you.
I think what you say about second time parents is important – one of my biggest concerns with baby “experts” is that they often are used by insecure, first time parents and these are the individuals less likely to just take what suits them and move on. The insecurity means they follow to a tee and ignore their baby which is what needs to be the focus of parenting. Does that make sense?
I hear you. All I can say is in the many mums and dads that I have met over my time so far as a parent. Most people rely on opinions of other mums, family and the health visitors and much less so on the written word. Even the lost first time mum. But these books and methods definately open discussion among us all in our eternal job of raising a well rounded healthy human being. So wrong or right debate is healthy and helps us all along the way. We all want the same thing at the end of the day.
I can’t believe you didn’t bother to read the book first! I’ve read it and you’ve got some of those points completely wrong. Totally undermines any opinions and recommendations you make.
Commenting on something without knowing anything about it (in this case reading a book) makes no sense at all; at least logical unbiased sense.
The most important thing I see that came from sleep training our first born was that stress levels dropped significantly within weeks after our son started to sleep all night.
Before, he would be waking up every hour/two hours and that was just pure sleep deprivation torture for all of us and you could see just by looking at us that we were going insane. Really, people would comment and ask us if we were ok. In three days of using the method he was crying for a few hours all together… before that, he was constantly cranky during the day and constantly crying.
My wife wrote an article about our experiences called Every child can learn to sleep
Them golden rules seem heartless and from someone that shouldn’t have a child, to love and nurture. Stick to pets!
I can’t believe this was written so many years ago and it’s still up there confusing people, this is the kind of articles that I call “Google garbage” and that is the reason why “Googleing” answers is so dangerous… When I first saw this I couldn’t believe it, it actually makes me very upset how wrong you are. I’m very happy I went all the way down to the coments and realised that I’m not alone, unfortunately they are too far down to be read by every mum who comes across this article. Next time you wrote about something you should research first, in this specific case, read the book!!!!!
I think it varies from baby to baby.
There are loads of untrue points in your book review. Have you read the book?