WIBU to ask why people are so weird about cry it out?

[Worried675]

OK, I know already how this is going to go and what views about this are on Mumsnet, but my question I guess is why people are so against cry it out methods? Recent research showed no differences in babies' behaviour/happiness/attachment etc. between cry it out and other sleep training methods. I'm always surprised by how strongly people are against it, especially as anyone born in the 80s or before probably were trained that way.

Enlighten me! Is using cry it out unreasonable? Why/why not?

We had similar. My absolutely awful sleeper, who I cuddled and breastfed baby to sleep innumerable times a night turned out to have a brain tumour which was causing her headaches.

I'm very glad I comforted rather than sleep trained, even though it was hard. The idea that I could have left her cry herself to sleep when in pain makes me shudder now.

That means neglect as in social services removing the child. Not sleep training. Is restricting the number of sweets your child eats the same as starving them to death?

@Pyri

But the Ferber method (for example which is CC not CIO) usually only takes a few days to work for the baby to sleep through. So how is that “consistently not meeting the baby’s needs”? If you spend every other waking minute and hour meeting their needs for 9/10/11 months how does a few nights of leaving them to cry and going back a few minutes later damage them?

I am not referring to particular cry it out methods though am I? I am answering the poster. Also if you read my posts I said consistently not meeting a babies needs (and not one or two times).

Because babies who are left unattended don’t develop certain parts of their brain.

Yes - the example in the photo is extreme - from a Romanian orphanage. I know several children who were left alone to the point of neglect here in the UK, who have the same underdeveloped brains. They suffer from attachment disorder as a result, and have extreme behavioural challenges and will never have the ability to feel empathy, love or safety like normal people do. They rely, instead, on their overdeveloped ‘fight or flight’ response - which you can see at the back of the brain.

Leaving a baby to cry for long periods is a bit too close to this type of neglect, even if it is temporary - who knows how quickly the damage can be done.

The children I am referring to were removed as tiny babies, but it was too late - life long physical damage to their brains had already been done. Love is critical to the development of a child, just like food and shelter.

Eh? This makes no sense whatsoever

DD is almost 4 months old, from day 1 she's just laid down in her Moses basket or cot and fallen asleep when she's been tired, I have needed to help her fall asleep about 4 times she's been born, I've never had to think about crying it out.
DS however is 3.5 and still doesn't sleep through, still needs me or DH to sit with him while he falls asleep and still comes into our bed most nights. He's been an awful sleeper since day 1, I thought about letting him cry and I just couldn't do it, I like that DS is secure enough to come to me if he wakes. He knows I will meet his needs as I always have done, I don't think you get to clock out of being a parent.
Just to add though I have tried some gentle sleep training methods but just didn't bother sticking with them, I've no problem with gentle sleep training such as gradual retreat shush pat etc but I couldn't ever just leave my child to cry and ignore them, but I'd never leave my DH to cry and ignore him either.

"Yes - the example in the photo is extreme - from a Romanian orphanage"

Not this example again! It's the one that's always used and yes, it so extreme it's useless as evidence. Those children endured severe neglect, they were neglected in their waking hours, undernourished and ignored almost entirely.

It's honestly basic psychology and teach at A level and first year at uni.

It is well known in psychology that consistently leaving a baby to cry results in attachment issues.

Do your own research people! You should know basic psychology of you are a parent!

My kids are much older now but I remember a well meaning children's centre worker advising that I co slept. My daughter literally screamed when she was tired (whether that was in my arms, with me next to her or lying on her own). And then she slept. Took me ages to realise that the more I tried to console her the more wound up she got. There's a lot to be said for working out what makes your child wind down (and the opposite).

I would never judge another parent's tactic for getting a child to sleep well. It makes everyone happier.

Funny how when you keep saying 'do your own research!' people aren't magically convinced, isnt it?

@SleeplessInEngland

Funny how when you keep saying 'do your own research!' people aren't magically convinced, isnt it?

It's not my job to 'convince' people though is it. I'm just astounded that the people asking others to research haven't bothered to conduct their own research. The attachment theory is basic psychology and there has been numerous stuff since. All this cry it out methods weren't taught when I was training - funny that 🤷🏼‍♀️.

If your a mum feeling guilty leaving your child to cry it out a few times I'm not shaming you telling you are wrong. We all have to do what we can sometimes if we're sleep deprecated and emotionally disregilated. It more a consistent pattern of behaviour and a few times isn't going to do any damage. We have to look after ourselves first 🙏

Sleep deprived

But that is completely irrelevant. You are talking about a different subject. Yes it's tragic what happened in Romanian orphanages. But if those children had been looked after lovingly the other 362 nights of the year they would be fine. Babies who are sleep trained are not loved any less.

"
But the Ferber method (for example which is CC not CIO) usually only takes a few days to work for the baby to sleep through. So how is that “consistently not meeting the baby’s needs”? If you spend every other waking minute and hour meeting their needs for 9/10/11 months how does a few nights of leaving them to cry and going back a few minutes later damage them?"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4643535/

Sleep trained babies wake up just as frequently overnight as non sleep trained babies. Their sleep is only perceived as being better by parents because they no longer signal to their parents when they wake. It seems unlikely that these babies have suddenly stopped having physical/social/emotional needs overnight, but by being left to cry they have learned that there is no point in crying out for their parents overnight as their cries will be ignored. So while it's just a few nights of crying, it's not just a few nights of needs not being met overnight. That is ongoing but as the babies have given up and are no longer vocal about their unmet needs the parents assume that means everything is fine.

It's not my job to 'convince' people though is it

Well you seem pretty adamant people come round to your way of thinking, so... yeah?

If your a mum feeling guilty leaving your child to cry it out a few times I'm not shaming you telling you are wrong.

I'm not feeling guilty, but thanks.

My mum and my fiancées mum used this method as that’s what they were advised to do, they were told if all baby’s needs are met then leave them to tire themselves out. My mum feels very guilty now, but that was the general advice at the time.

I think it may have contributed to our struggles with anxiety tbh, I always have this fear of not being able to cope if things go wrong, so would kind of make sense if when things did “go wrong” as a baby I was ignored and not reassured or comforted.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the cry it out method. Yes the baby cries when it happens but learning to self sooth is a massive massive benefit to babies and parents. I had a couple of friends who did this and the difference between their kids and everyone's else's was noticible. There kids slept well and they slept well. They were a bit rigid with bedtimes but other than that it looked good to me. I think kids end up feeling more secure as they can self sooth rather than perpetuating the feeling of needing someone to settle them.

I know it doesn't work with all kids though.
Look at the millions of posts where posters on Mumsnet where they are exhausted and their kids are exhausted.

I did a mixture with my own four kids. In retrospect I would have done cry-it-out ( controlled crying)
with all of them.
I also got my kids potty trained as early as possible rather than waiting until the kid is ready. I worked on it and then me and the kids all benefitted from it. I think The kids felt so much more comfortable when they didn't have to wear nappies. It's also better for the environment. It obviously won't work with all kids but I dont think it's it's in the kids best interests to wait and wait until they are ready.
Same goes for dummies and breast feeding. I breast fed my kids for the recommended time then I stopped. The kids got over it remarkably easily and quickly.

I'd disagree with this. While obviously not in the majority, there are a sizeable number of people that applies to, myself included. As I said, we're lucky to have had a naturally good sleeper. If we hadn't, we'd have definitely had to sleep train. My husband is present but has a chronic illness. He can't do the childcare, so our little one goes to nursery. I have a job with a lot of responsibility. I only had 12 weeks maternity pay at 90% and no other income so had to go back really early. There are plenty of single parents out there, plenty of poor sleeping babies, and plenty of people in high responsibility jobs. Even if a job isn't high responsibility, driving to work, for example, just isn't tenable without sleep. I just think it's coming from a place of privilege to assume that there are a) two parents to get up at night b) enough money for a long maternity leave and plenty of "napping with the baby".

@pbdr

You're not reading my posts probably. You keep saying the same thing.

But the Ferber method (for example which is CC not CIO) usually only takes a few days to work for the baby to sleep through. So how is that “consistently not meeting the baby’s needs”? I

I DIDN'T SAY A FEW DAYS WOULD COUNT AS CONSISTENTLY NOT MEETING A CHILDS NEEDS.

I said it WOULD have to be consistent! 🙄

It's a bit extreme comparing controlled crying to how children were treated in the awful Romanian orphanages. It's a ridiculous comparison. Those kids were starved of any affection and were mistreated. It's insulting to them and what they went to put them in the same category as a child with loving parents who does controlled crying.

We will have to agree to disagree then won't we 🙂.

I'll go with my 8 years of psychology qualifications / experience.

Have a nice day x

Ferber’s theory though, which I have a lot of time for, is that of course babies wake (more likely stir) in the night just like adults do. I simply do not believe that my 9month sleep trained baby wakes and lies there terrified thinking, ‘well there’s no point crying because no one will come so I might as well lie here alone and scared till I drift back off’. Before we sleep trained and he woke I definitely think he was scared, because he went to sleep in my arms or on the breast and woke up in an entirely different situation. That would be scary for adults too! Ferber compares it to going to sleep snuggled up with your partner in bed and waking in the garden. Of course you’d be bloody terrified and wouldn’t just go back to sleep. But because my baby goes to sleep in his cot, having been put down awake and smiling, when he stirs in the night he’s in his same comfortable bed and happily settles himself back down. That is so much healthier in my mind. He’s not constantly waking every hour confused about what’s happened since he went to sleep. That just seems so much less damaging and frightening to me?

There is a difference though between learning to self soothe and being left to scream and the 'fight or flight' part of your brain tske over until it basically exhausts them. If you just leave them in distress then they aren't learning to soothe. The emotional side of their brain has taken over to such an extent that they can't 'learn' anything. They might eventually learn that nobody comes whether they scream or not and to internalise that panic (in sleeping and probably other stressful things in life). However they won't necessarily have learned an effective way of going to sleep gently. If you want to acheive true 'self soothing' then IMO you do this by being with them in their room and a gentle 'shhhh' or a hand on their chest. You don't just leave them and hope they learn something by themselves that even adults find difficult. That's the difference

I'm sceptical of this. Attachment Theory is about meeting a child's needs and it's debatable whether a child needs to be constantly cuddled or whether they need to learn to soothe independently too. I studied science, so I'm not in the way of using anecdotes as evidence (I'm aware this is just my experience and may well be survivors' bias), but my parents used cry it out and I have brilliant relationships with both of them. What I mean is, MAYBE some babies may not form attachments with caregivers, but that's a maybe and it's clearly not universal even if true. This goes back to my original point: I understand that for some people, this just isn't something they'd try, but the level of outrage about other people doing it is, to me, is pretty weird.

Attachment theory has nothing to do with sleep training That's probably why you weren't taught about it. The research on sleep training says that it's not detrimental. As you presumably know if you've looked into it.