How much should we carry our babies?

[Joe]

I have just come across this discussion and still find it hard to understand how we can carry your babies around for 9 months but when they are born we are expected to put them to one side when ever possible. I have always carried my son around either in my arms or sling and still do (anybody got any recommendations for back packs). He has slept with us from birth (at first sleeping on my chest at night and most of the day) and eventually in our bed. He has developed into a happy, content and confident little chap. At 9 months he is just starting to go into his own cot (a decision I made led by his behaviour) and is happy to sleep in there during the day and most of the night. I have loved the closeness we have shared. He is growing up and I am determined to enjoy every moment.

Just sneeked a quick look at that website too, Lizzer, Don't know if I agree 100% with the attachment parenting line regarding my children - need to look into it more closely. Lots of interesting stuff, though.

I wonder if Dr Sears would be interested in doing a mumsnet question and answer session?

Thanks Marina.

Lizzer - yes a lot of AP is quite obvious but I think we often forget the obvious! Often it can seem that we fit kids round our lives instead of adapting our lifestyle to accommodate their needs. This is more relevant in today's society where we are so caught up in achievements in the form of qualifications and making money.

I haven't had much of chance to really get into AP and indeed it seemed pretty much what I was doing anyway. I am by no means perfect and there are moments when I blow my fuse and all good intentions go out of the window! Once a few folk here have had read about it more then it may make an interesting discussion.

Tigermoth - yes it is possible to breastfeed 2 children, this is called 'tandem feeding'. By the time a newborn has arrived generally speaking the older child is only feeding a few times a day so it is unlikely that he would be competing for attention. I have however seen a picture of a women feeding both her toddler and her newborn! As for a 15 month and a 2 1/2 year old - well this situation is unlikely to occur - you are talking about only 15 months between these kids. Breastfeeding (if done properly) prevents fertility and further pregnancy for some time (in my case 13 months before I was fertile). In other words the act of breastfeeding naturally prevents you having competing siblings for your milk. This I guess goes back to the time when resources were scarce.

Continuing to b/feed the older child can help a great deal with the jealousy situation of the new baby because the child is still getting continuity ie getting b/fed which he/she has known from birth. This can help the child to feel loved. I guess it depends on the situation. If the mother doesn't feel up to tandem nursing she will wean the older child - she has 9 months to do it so the situation of having to say no to him/her wouldn't arise.

Emmam - I get my research from websites, books and a lot of it is is just purely being a mother itself. To respond to your point - at the beginning of the last century some children were given sugared water but if another woman was not found these babies would die. There was no substitute in those days. Gradually throughout the 20s/30s formula milk was invented but it was rather dangerous stuff in those days. It was invented in America and called formula because it was likened to a 'magic formula' and was actually marketed as being better than breastmilk. There are now strict worldwide regulations on the promotion and sale of formula.

My point really is that even if you bottlefeed you are still trying to get as near as breastfeeding as you can. Teats are continually being developed to be softer and allow a better airflow, warnings given against proping baby up with bottle alone etc etc. It can never be the same of course ... perhaps to answer Lizzer's point is that technology allows us to be the only mammals that don't drink their own milk but despite this we shouldn't forget how to be 'natural'. This I think is what AP is about.

I've posted this on another thread so sorry for the reptition.

Infant Formula:
Second Best but Good Enough
by Isadora B. Stehlin
A century ago, babies who couldn't be breast-fed usually didn't survive. Today, although breast-feeding is still the best nourishment for infants, infant formula is a close enough second that babies not only survive but thrive.

Commercially prepared formulas are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

The safety of commercially prepared formula is also ensured by the agency's nutrient requirements (see "Nutrient Requirements") and by strict quality control procedures that require manufacturers to analyze each batch of formula for required nutrients, to test samples for stability during the shelf life of the product, to code containers to identify the batch, and to make all records available to FDA investigators.

The composition of infant formula is similar to breast milk, but it isn't a perfect match, because the exact chemical makeup of breast milk is still unknown.

Human milk is very complex, and scientists are still trying to unravel and understand what makes it such a good source of nutrition for rapidly growing and developing infants. However, John C. Wallingford, Ph.D., an infant nutrition specialist with FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, notes that "infant formula is increasingly close to breast milk."

More than half the calories in breast milk come from fat, and the same is true for today's infant formulas. This may be alarming to many American adults watching their intake of fat and cholesterol, especially when sources of saturated fats, such as coconut oil, are used in formulas. (In adults, high intakes of saturated fats tend to increase blood cholesterol levels more than other fats or oils.) But the low-fat diet recommended for adults doesn't apply to infants.

"Infants have a very high energy requirement, and they have a restricted volume of food that they can digest," says Wallingford. "The only way to get the energy density of a food up is to have a high amount of fat."

While greater knowledge about human milk has helped scientists improve infant formula, it has become "increasingly apparent that infant formula can never duplicate human milk," write John D. Benson, Ph.D, and Mark L. Masor, Ph.D., in the March 1994 issue of Endocrine Regulations. "Human milk contains living cells, hormones, active enzymes, immunoglobulins and compounds with unique structures that cannot be replicated in infant formula."

Benson and Masor, both of whom are pediatric nutrition researchers at infant formula manufacturer Abbott Laboratories, believe creating formula that duplicates human milk is impossible. "A better goal is to match the performance of the breastfed infant," they write. Performance is measured by the infant's growth, absorption of nutrients, gastrointestinal tolerance, and reactions in blood.

Thanks once again Eulalia, I too hope that after some more people have read about AP we can go into it further - I feel that I have just been 'winging' it and going with the flow as a 1st time Mum, but it's nice to see that there is a good strong case to support some of the things I have been doing instead of feeling GUILTY about bed-sharing, b/feeding etc... I've told my Mum about this style of parenting and she's enthralled at knowing that she's been part of it all too, without knowing it. I think you are right when you say that sometimes our natural reactions and instincts have been altered by today's society. I'd like to think I'm led by my child and in that way get to understand her. But I'm the first to admit I'm nowhere near perfect.....

I believe that I have instinctively used most of the AP techniques described on drsears website. Before my child was born I deliberately did not buy a car seat which can be used to carry the baby outside of the car. This meant I had to carry my child in my arms when visiting people, attending baby groups, parties, etc. Of course I used a pram for long walks or shopping but my daughter was the only one of my group of friends' children who was not placed in a car seat carrier.She was by far the most alert and contented out of the group, so that everyone commented upon it. May be coincidence but I really felt that the touching part was vital (and I had never heard of AP at that time).

I had a teacher who was from China and she said she was surprised that we use buggies and prams. She says most people in her country use those baby carrier things you put on your front or back or they just carry them in their arms. I don't think I could bear the weight all the time.

It's a bit off subject, but I had an argument once with someone about so-called "attachment" parenting. It involves the parent (the mother in this case) never leaving the baby at all and always having him/her in their arms. It also means you can't have a job or even leave your child with the other partner at all and may even lead to the child not going to school. I think you have to let them go and be their own person sometime!

Mima, regarding breastfeeding. I had trouble with it, and if I couldn't have managed to express it would have been the bottle for me. Also, breastfeeding can tie you to the baby. Expressing was a nuiscance I won't deny it, but at least I could plan other things and it meant Jack could be left with his Dad without me.

I think we should all remember that infant mortality rates in the west are at their lowest ever levels. Our babies and children are more likely to survive to adulthood than ever before. I don't think if you breast feed or bottle feed it makes any difference to your bonding with your child. What makes the difference is love. If we love our children and do the best for them that we can then we shouldn't feel guilty about the choices we make.
I have to take issue with Eulalia's information about wet-nursing. It was not just the aristocracy that used wet-nursing, it was rampant throughout all levels of society during the the latter 17th and well into the 18th century. It was particularly prevelent in working class families where the women worked and could not afford to take time off to look after infants and so used wet-nurses. Sending infants out to wet-nurses resulted in such high infant mortality rates in France during this time that the successive governments campaigned against it. If anyone wants anymore information about the changing role of motherhood over our millions of years of existence they should read "Mother Nuture" by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.

Are you sure about that Bugsy? Everythng I've read on the subject stresses that it was the better off women who resorted to wet nursing although certainly it became very popular in France just ahead of the French revolution. As wages at that time for women were subsistence level, I wouldn't have thoguht they were able to pay a wet nurse and pre-industrial revolution, almost all jobs were otudoors where babies were brought along. From the onset of the industrial revolution, there was a dramatic rise in supplements given to babies early on which led to soaring infant mortality at that time. I have read a number of books on the subject and haven't come across much on working class women employing wet nurses but I could be reading the wrong books!

Croppy, I think that she is probably referring to the growing urban working class rather than the farm labourers. Even before the industrial revolution there was a non-rural working class: clerks, milliners, dressmakers, shopkeepers, importers, innkeepers, domestic staff etc. In nearly all of these families the women worked in some capacity and they would send their children to wetnurses for a pitance. Wet nurses only made a living by having so many babies to feed - hence the very high mortality rates. Frequently infants would be sent out to a wet nurse that the parents had never even seen.
Unfortunately, I haven't got the book at work but I will check the reference material when I get home and can let you know where she found her info on Thursday.

That makes sense Bugsy - god it's all so horrible...

My info on wet nurses was rather incomplete. Apologies. Anyway the context in which I used it was to show that women rarely gave their babies to someone else out of choice. Had they been able to feed they would have done so themselves.

Emmam to go back to your previous post. I am interested in your views on being anti-breastfeeding. I guess you just mean from a personal viewpoint rather than you actually thinking it is wrong/bad for everyone? You say you are almost “phobic” about it. I wonder where you get your fears from …? (as you brought it up yourself) but I won’t press further…. It was just making me think about how women would have felt 100 years ago when they had no choice about breastfeeding and if any of them had negative feelings. I guess there were a great deal of unwanted pregnancies and hence mothers feeding their unwanted babies, but perhaps they got over this once the baby was born and feeding. In those days they had to get over negative feelings just the same way we have to put up with pregnancy. For me breastfeeding was a no choice issue. Anyway I wonder if in years to come if we are able to develop artificial wombs if women would choose that and then in time find the process of pregnancy and birth repulsive?

Message withdrawn

Going on the rant again here (not another- I hear you cry!)
I have to say I find the whole 'elective' word a bit disconcerting "I think I'll have my baby on ermm....Tuesday, when I get back from Selfridges, that should be fine yes, pencil me in" Grrr.... I mean I know women who've had emergency c-sections and felt that they've missed out on the whole birth experience and would have loved to have gone through the whole process. Why should people be given a choice providing they can cough up enough cash.Bloss, I think your sil being squeamish is a pretty normal reaction. I don't think anyone really relishes the thought of labour and delivery but it's tough, that's what nature intended why do people want to mess around with it so much...?
On the same tack I read that Nicole Appleton was originally asked to be induced on one day, then changed her mind and brought it forward to a different, what??!! When I 'had' to be induced (waters broke 36 hrs before, no contractions and 15 days overdue!) it was a case of 'I don't particulary want to be attached to a drip and unable to have an active birth, but yeah thanks I think it's about time I saw my baby' not 'oh damn, can't do wednesday...Monday any good?'
Sorry, maybe this should be on a different thread but would be interested to see people's viewpoints...

Lizzer - I agree with you, a c section would be the last thing I would want, major surgery, not being able to take the baby out in the pram and a natural birth has not put me off having any more, it only last a while and it is soon forgotten. Bloss - your sister didnt mind having a scar then and the risk of complications??
I would hate to be induced too - very unatural - but if it was recommended if it looked like something might go wrong then I would, but wouldnt be happy.
Why cant these people just sit back and let things happen in their own time instead of fitting it into their hectic lifestlyes, didnt Zoe Ball do this over Christmas??
Im all for natural and go with the flow.

I am frankly terrified at the thought of having to have a C-setion. I had no problems first time around but it is nonethless one of my biggest fears, that next time it will be deemed necessary. I find it amazing that anyone would choose to have one...

Message withdrawn

Lizzer, I could not agree more. I had an "elective" (misleading term, due to how my son was lying neither of us might have survived a natural delivery) and was quite seriously ill in hospital for ten days afterwards. If I'm really honest, I have never got over the experience. It was hateful. It has left me with very real fears about having another child, even though we are going ahead anyway. And I still have friends who walked out of hospital 48 hours after their baby's birth saying, cheer up, at least your perineum's intact.
I don't know whether "our Rachel" is still on the boards in her new guise, but there was a well-written piece on the femail website yesterday about the health risks associated with C-sections of all varieties. If you wrote it Rachel, cheers - but I'm glad I hadn't seen it before I had my baby!

Bloss – I heard a radio programme about women’s views on pregnancy. CS were mentioned. It also said that midwifery was becoming a lost art. Midwives were once able to externally manipulate a baby if it was lying in the wrong position. Now a woman is just given a CS. CS isn’t even always necessary for a breech birth. My mum had me and my sister (twins) and my sister came out first, feet first and we were both big babies for twins. It is a shame that you sister has a negative view on pregnancy. My midwife was very positive. When she asked me if I had morning sickness and I replied no. She said that’s fine you don’t HAVE to have it. So many people treat pregnancy as an illness. Perhaps luck had some thing to do with it but I only put on 22lbs, had no days off work and was very fit during my pregnancy. Of course you make your own luck to some extent and keeping healthy is vital. The medical services are great but for me some women rely too much upon doctors to do things for them…. Going off on a tangent somewhat here … just one final point – funny how people perceive pregnancy. Some may think a pregnant woman looks beautiful, others that they look like beached whales. The media seems to be favouring pregnancy somewhat more nowadays – so you can still have the ‘body beautiful’ and a bump too.

By the way can I ask if your sister had an OK pregnancy and of course – did she breastfeed?!

It depends on how late you are really. If it was dragging on and could possibly be dangerous then yes I would want it to be induced.

Although I have been lucky enough to have 2 "normal" (ie, vaginal with no forceps,etc) deliveries, I am very sad that there is such fear of this kind of childbirth. For myself I would not have chosen CS but would have had it instantaneously if the medics thought it was the safest option for my child. The statistics prove without a doubt that CS has far more risks attached for both mother and baby. Also the thought of being cut open causes me far more fear than giving birth the way we were made for.I wonder exactly which part of giving birth women are afraid of: is it labour pain or the thought of a "large" head coming out of a "small" hole (sorry to be so graphic!), or the fear of damage to the area?

Message withdrawn

I think a lot of pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding is about handing your body over to another person. This can be frightening. It depends on how you look at it. A phobia is of course an irrational fear and usually most people know that only too well as I am sure your sister did Bloss (glad to hear all went well by the way). It is of course also about choice – if a fear can be avoided then some people will do this by having a CS or by bottlefeeding. The problem with this is that you are so busy avoiding the phobia that you can forget the disadvantages of your alternative choice. One of my friends wouldn’t even counter the thought of breastfeeding but with experience she now feels differently and is going to try it with no 2. Also because she wasn’t considering it she just didn’t bother to find out anything about it. She has seen her other friends do it and now realises how easy it can be – so often a fear can be removed just by gaining knowledge and observing others.