The Baby Whisperer!

[lurcherlover]

Sorry, this has probably been raised before but I am currently reading this book as I'm struggling to get DS to sleep at night and a friend recommended it as being less scary than GF. But I've just read the section on feeding and I'm fuming! Despite apparently being unbiased in terms of breast/formula, it seems to me a lot of what she writes would terrify a pregnant woman thinking of breastfeeding. For example:

• she tells women to express so they can monitor their "yield" (er, are we cows now?!) - she does add that a baby may take an extra ounce in addition to what's expressed. I think babies can take more than an ounce extra!

• she tells pregnant women to stick plasters above and below their nipples at precise locations to practise where they will hold their breasts while feeding.

• she specifies how long baby should be on the breast for (starting with 5 minutes, then working up to 15 mins a side by day three).

And a couple of nice quotations to really make you feel good about breastfeeding:

"many studies trumpet the benefits of breastmilk...while I agree that human milk is undoubtedly good for babies, we mustn't go overboard."

"Breastfeeding changes the look of most women's breasts even more than pregnancy does...small-breasted women who feed for more than a year can become flat as pancakes; large-breasted women may experience sagging."

I can't believe this advice comes from a so-called expert...if I'd read this while pregnant I would have started feeding my baby all wrong. Sorry, but this book has made my blood boil today and I needed to rant

I hated her encouragement that parents label their babies "grumpy baby" etc can't remember the others. Small babies can be easier or harder, some of that depends on the labour and birth, some of it depends on parents' expectations and some of it is down to human nature. I loathed the idea of labelling a baby, the same way I hate being labelled (as the tetchy, argumentative woman )

Wasn't there also a really bonkers "guide to crying" which featured descriptions of cries with high cry = wind or hunger, low moan = wind or hunger etc. "No shit Sherlock!" Load of utter bollocks. I tried EASY but my "difficult baby" would not comply so I abandoned it. Amazingly she has made it through babyhood and beyond without this crap controversial advice.

"Gina Ford is quite good on how to wash woollies, for instance."

Tiktok, you are so funny ! But I imagine Gina Ford has the last laugh, fancy being the number one best selling childcare author, because she gives good advice on washing woollies !

The truth of the matter is about books by Tracy Hogg, Gina Ford and the likes, is that if the advice from organisations like the NCT worked so well, then parents would not even bother to look at these type of books.

Another thing the breastfeeding rates in the UK were dreadful, long before either of these books came out. In my opinion, it is not just TH or GF that have a lot to answer for !

I don't mind people slating the advice on BFing technique as long as it's confined to that/any other specific issues. At least that way if a mother goes and googles and comes across this thread she can feel confident enough to bin that section of the book.

But her advice on following baby's lead (shock horror!) or trying to work with your baby's personality (because some people don't really assign personalities to their newborn) can be helpful and the simplicity of EASY, whether you BF, FF, go by the clock or on demand, helps restore a semblance of order which can be a lifesaver.

So sweeping comments like 'it's an evil book' don't help, but pointing out that the BF stuff is crap and other parts are good (like people have been doing) is helpful.

Like I said earlier I would ignore any BF stuff becuase there's no subsitute for the info from people like LLL who do really know what they're talking about, but books written by very experienced babycare professionals, with the caveat that they're based on the generalisations from observerving hundreds of babies, can be helpful when taken with a pinch of salt. One does rather wish the author had stuck to what she knew!

I think tiktok and moonunit have said most of what I think.

But to come back to your point, gold, that "just pointing out the problem with giving things a seal of approval - that it has the positive effect of saying 'the BF advice here is good' but the flipside of that is people may perceive any book without that seal as being bad". I agree that this may happen, but if people can't work out that the seal of approval refers only to the bf advice, is that a reason not to implement what is otherwise a good idea? Should the mark not be there to beneift those who can make the distinction? For example, I found some stuff in GF actually quite useful and a
happily ignored the BF section...HOWEVER, I did read the bf section and this made me doubt myself for a couple of days until I spoke to someone sane who reassured me it was rubbish. If I had seen that the BF advice was not endorsed by LLL then I would just have stuck to the advice on sleep without the needless feelings of doubt re feeding.

And perhaps when saying the book is evil, I should have prefaced with IMO - because IMO it is! I do know mothers who found it helpful but they were the ones who felt confident enough to discount the rubbish advice and not feel belittled by the other nonesense in there.

I think it would just need to be implemented very carefully, not that it's a bad idea.

There's a difference between:

'Approved by (say) LLL'

and

'Breast-feeding advice endorsed by LLL'

The first may be intended to refer to the fact that the breast-feeding advice is endorsed by LLL but gives the impression that the whole book is. I don't think it would be a problem with putting it on the book, per se, I think it would come down to reviews and recommendations.

Plus the fact that using an undendorsed book serves as a way to stigmatise mothers who, for whatever reason, don't BF or opens them up to criticism that they're harming BFing by using a routine from an unendorsed book when that's not what it's being used for.

I just have visions of people coming onto MN and going 'I use BW's routine and I'm struggling with BFing' then being told off for even attempting to do anything out of a book where the BFing advice doesn't have the seal of approval (but other parts are valuable and compatible with that feeding method).

And now I'm going round in circles because I know what I want to say and what I mean but I can't seem to express it.

well, i thought the whole BW book was awful. 'it's the sensible middle approach' everyone said.

i couldn't get my baby to fit into EASY, so i thought that i was crap, my baby a nightmare and i didn't bf enough so that ended up a disaster. my baby just wanted to be held and fed a lot of the time. like normal physiology intends. It wasn't the bf advice i found to detrimental to my bf but the whole EASY routine - the basis of the book!

humans had babies long before they had clocks (or prams, or cots, or separate rooms) so why are mothers made to feel we are failures if our babies don't particularly like or heed these things?

Anyone thinking of the BW, save your money, buy food of love or no cry sleep solution or science of parenting. BW and CLB are just each ONE person's idea of how to manage a baby - another person's baby - there is no science, research, or body of experience over time. Why do so many people think these books are so great?! All a bit Emperor's new clothes!

I loved the BW book. Combined with GF and a routine-aholic child it saved my sanity.

I think the book is a triumph of marketing - it announces itself as the 'reasonable middle way', which of course is very seductive - but there's actually a HUGE gap between how this babyrearing manual markets itself, and what it actually, finally, practically tells you to do.

That makes me dislike it more than hardcore GF type books. I find it more dishonest. All that 'listen to your baby' stuff sounds lovely and warm and nurturing, doesn't it. But then she actually tells you (page 100 my edition) that if you are BF-ing every 2 to 2 and a half hours, and your baby sounds like she's crying because of hunger before she's due a feed... then she can't be. Yup - follow her routine, and 'you know that the cries in between [feeds] are for other reasons.'

So, you know - listen to your baby apart from when it tells you something that doesn't fit in with her routine.

An unpleasant, insidious book, very damaging for BF-ing and also rather bullying in places. Page 52, she says - "I'm not at all surprised when after several weeks or months of trying it their way, mothers and fathers who initially rejected EASY call me back, either because their life is a shambles or because they have a cranky baby on their hands and don't know what he needs - or both."

No thanks.

Some people will like some books, and some will like others. Just because you don't like the BW books doesn't make them "insidious" or "evil"!! What works for one Mum/baby, won't work for everyone. I disagree with some of her advice (e.g. only ever BF from one side), but some of it helps. None of the baby books are 100 percent correct for any baby. I know lots of people who only ever BF from one side and it suits them- it just doesn't work for my baby. If you don't like her books - don't read them! Some of you need to chill out. The rest of us are quite capable of evaluating what advice to follow for our own children - there is no right or wrong answer on any of these points. Her advice for getting your baby to sleep has been absolutely life saving for us.
For what its worth - BF does change the look of breasts!! what's wrong with pointing that out? I used to have pert and perky 34c boobs, and now I have vile looking saggy G cup tits! This is a sacrifice I am unhesitatingly happy to make in order to give my baby the healthiest start in life, but TBH I didn't realise what a big difference it would make to my boobs so I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out?

my breasts are bigger now than before i breastfed ( for 12mnths )they are good!

I'm not sure breasts do change with bf, in my experience.

I read the baby whisperer & lots of other books, i made my own mind up about what to do'
followed my instincts iyswim.

Tracy hogg left her children in england to go to america with her 2nd dh. She was a nurse from yorkshire.

No, BF does not cause saggy breasts.

anastasiak - ok, so you liked the book, despite its shortcomings and despite the fact it misled you about bf and sagging (it's pregnancy that causes changes in the breasts, not bf - and actually my breasts are pretty ok, but I suppose I'm just lucky :) ) Pleased for ya.

How do you evaluate a book which purports to give information, gives it authoritatvely and criticises you if you don't follow its advice? How do you know which bits to reject?

Baby Whisperer is (mostly) rubbish, and causes some mothers a lot of distress. That's not me needing to 'chill out', by the way - just telling the truth.

Gold - I do know what you mean and it is a valid point but I guess I think the risk of what you describe:

"I just have visions of people coming onto MN and going 'I use BW's routine and I'm struggling with BFing' then being told off for even attempting to do anything out of a book where the BFing advice doesn't have the seal of approval (but other parts are valuable and compatible with that feeding method"

is not as great or harmful as mothers reading the book and assuming the bf advice is really good because they don't know otherwise.