To think Wonder Weeks is a load of bollocks?

[EleanorofProvence]

I've not read the book or got the app but have seen bits and bobs posted on FB and it just seems like a right crock of shite to me. Is there actually a research basis for it or is it just a money spinner?

Eleanor the first study on buggies that is quoted a lot was on road safety - did mums look at the road or their phone more or less depending on type of buggy.
All a bit tangential.

Pansy, my daughter was 6 weeks prem. We went by due date, as suggested. It really was very accurate.

There are other studies that back up wonder weeks observations and these are quoted in the website. Admittedly I've not read them all however the model of regression periods in primates and some mammals seems widely accepted. Wonder weeks simply takes this research and presents in a user friendly format for parents

I found it immensely helpful.

All bollocks so far in my experience..

My baby was prem yet it was totally accurate. Also for my 2nd child who was not prem.

Yanbu, it's total shit. I think people make it fit their baby rather than it actually working. My friend and I had babies 5 days apart. She had the app and was always saying "oh this week the boys will be like this..." whilst I was a bit It was never accurate for my son. Him and my friends baby were different at different weeks and still are. I also think I know the reason my baby is grumpy better than an app. For example, the app may say it's because he's clingy whereas I can physically see the teeth in hia mouth trying to come through!

There are other studies that back up wonder weeks observations and these are quoted in the website.

Sources please.

Quoted;

Regression periods in 12 primate species
and 2 non-primate mammals (Horwich, 1974)
Observations of regression studies;
• Spain: Sadurni & Rostan (2003) 

• England: Woolmore & Richer (2003) 

• Sweden: Lindahl, Heimann, & Ullstadius (2003) 

• The Netherlands: Plooij & Van de Rijt- Plooij (2003) 
(From: M. Heimann (Ed.), Regression Periods in Human Infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum) 
effects of regression studies;
Study De Vries (1984)
• Maziade et al. (1987)
• Van de Rijt-Plooij, Van der Stelt, & Plooij (1996): Leaping Hurdles

Plus studies into sudden age linked brain changes;

Fischer and rose 1994 (weekly changes in head circumference)

Huttenlocher 1990 (synapse density)

Conel 1939-1967 (dendrite growth)

Fox and bell 1990 (ratio of alpha to beta in eeg)

Mizuno et al 1970 (relative power of occipital eeg)

Trevarthen & aitken 2003

Yanbu. I've got the app and so far its not matched up with my baby at all. I'm so glad I didn't waste even more money on the book.

NotWithout those will all be the average age at which changes happen and, for example, there's no evidence that specific changes in synapse density or EEG or head circumference have anything to do with specific changes in behaviour. For some of the very early studies (1939?!!!), they will just have 1 or 2 brains.

This for example is the Huttenlocher study, it looks at how the brain grows and prunes, a really interesting idea which more recently has been linked to ASD as it may be that some of the pruning isn't taking place. But it says NOTHING about children's behaviour, and actually seems to be a kind of gradual change, not in leaps and starts like the WW people say.

Basically these studies are saying "Babies' brains change!". Yes, they do. This has no proven link whatsoever to some putative developmental timetable that all babies are supposed to be on.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with ME specifically. I quoted the studies that wonder weeks say their research is based on. It's a combination of studies about development, regressions and behaviour post regressions. So quoting one study as a standalone won't prove wonder weeks, but nor did I or they say it did

You're the one who said there was loads of evidence. None of it is in the slightest bit relevant.

I found it useful for ideas of how to entertain a baby at the different stages, and to track general progress and development. The app and online stuff was pretty useless, the book made much more sense to me.

Yes I think it's a load of pap but it offers some sort of "reason" to people who feel that every little bit of crying or bad sleep needs to be because of "something" like growth spurt, food allergy, developmental leap or whatever else instead of plain old normal baby behaviour.

I said there was evidence quoted on their website. I'm not making claims

Believe it or don't, I don't care!

Yanbu, you might as well look up your dc's stars in the Sunday Times style section

I "wonder" if there's a correlation between people who believe in Wonder Weeks and people who always get picked to go up on stage by hypnotists?

Nope. I'm a total cynic and would laugh a hypnotist off the stage

Surely at the highest level wonder weeks says that;
After birth all babies continue to grow and develop physically at pretty much the same rate (much as they do in the womb), so you can predict when certain developments will happen (as you can in the womb).
The physical developments are the enablers to mental development and the ability to grasp new skills
The mental development and the grasping of these new skills causes most babies to have fussy periods/regressions

I'm not sure why that's such a controversial claim? It's not going to be exactly accurate for all babies. All babies have different personalities and therefore their response to the regression will be different. It specifically says that external influences (eg new teeth) can also cause fussy periods. The studies it quotes cover these three main points.

Anyway. As you were

But babies don't develop physically at the same rate? Think about walking - there's a huge range of "normal" - babies I know first walked as early as 9mo or as late as 18mo.

Ditto rolling, crawling, teeth.

I'm not convinced.

I've found it to be useful, just to have a rough idea of what develops when. If you download the book chapters if has information from the main study. They are careful to say that the ages for the leaps represent the earliest a baby can develop certain skills and that they don't develop all of their skills at once i.e.- my DD is great at holding up her head and crowing but not do great with her hands and feet.

They also say that only the first three leaps are entirely predictable for all babies based on due date.

So, it's a useful tool but not gospel. Not sure why anyone should take against it so vehemently. It's not sudo-science or woo. Just one set of ideas about baby development. Read it or don't.

Cosmiccreepers - that's what pseudo-science IS. One person's ideas masquerading as fact.

Babies may or may not be unsettled when they learn new things, which they all do at differing rates so there's really no way the wonder weeks can be anything other than a coincidence if your baby happens to follow that pattern. But if it gives you some sort of reassurance then that's great. It's not doing any harm. But science it's not.

babies don't develop physically at the same rate
Exactly. Neither in OR out of the womb. And they aren't all fussy when learning a new skill.
As posted above - it's like horoscopes. Or a stopped clock - right once a day.