How heavy was your baby when he/she first slept for 8hours straight?

[Handsoff7]

My DD is 4.5months old but was 2 months early and small for dates so still only weighs around 10lbs.

She sleeps well but her limit is about 6hours at night. I suspect this is size related. Books and other posts generally talk about ages which is hard to interpret in my case.

How heavy were yours when they could go for a whole night?

Thanks for the help

Its funny how "sleep trainers" babies only ever have "a bit of a grumble" - one of my babies did that, but the other 2 certainly screamed to wake the dead, from very young indeed.

IMO if your baby slept, it would have anyway - maybe not quite as well as after "training", but well. The "trainable" ones are sleepers anyway.

Reading a book and "training" one or two (or even 5 or 6) babies means nothing. To "prove" anything you'd have to have a 95% success rate with a random sample of a thousand or so babies...

that's the reality of the dispute here: when you prioritise your own sleep, even in the face of a crying child.

Hmm...like you've never prioritised a motorway journey 'even in the face of a crying child'. What do you do, Perfect? Do you never undertake any task or journey in your daily life which might involve your baby crying for any period whatsoever when the likelihood is you may not be able to immediately comfort him? Of course you do. And when you do, you are allowing him to cry, not causing him to cry. And you allow it because it is inconvenient (motorway etc) to attend to him directly. You are safe in the knowledge that a short period of crying will not harm your baby physically or psychologically.

No-one is talking about babies being left to sob uncontrollably and at length in their cots. Stop trying to paint a picture of woeful abandonment and torture. My baby is proof that routines and sleep training can work. Just because it didn't work for you - or you couldn't handle five minutes of 'crying down', or whatever else you could have employed in your efforts to teach your baby to self settle - please don't proselytise about baby-led parenting as being the 'kinder' or 'safer' option. It isn't. No-one is saying you are a failure and no-one is saying you could have done better, but what you are trying to infer is that those of us who have taught our babies to self-settle and have implemented routines are in some way negligent. You will never, ever convince us of this, as we are looking at our contented and happy babies and seeing a very different picture

Tumbles, yes, yes you would, just like Gina Ford

StillWish, I echo your feelings regarding waiting until a child settles himself. Such misery to behold families of many months- or years-old children who scream to be put back to sleep and wake multiple times throughout the night.

Stillwish, I always try to be tactful about this, because dear friends whose good hearts are unquestionable use controlled crying etc, but... I think it's cruel. I think the claims that you're "helping your baby self-settle" are rationalising selfishness, because the reality - that they have clear, and biologically grounded needs, which are hard and painful to meet, so parents would rather read a book which gives them a rationalisation for failing to do so - is just more than some parents can bear.

I'm not trying to be arsey. I realise people do things differently and I try so hard not to be judgey on these threads and in these comments, and it's only my own personal opinion, so obviously it could be wrong. But no, I don't think anyone doing this helps their baby. I think they help themselves, while justifying it as for their baby. That's my truthful opinion, and I wouldn't voice it, if it weren't that several people here who would apparently rather their baby cries until they learn it's pointless, because they won't have their needs met, are judging women who would rather go without sleep for a few short months in a lifetime rather than put their baby through that. That latter decision is not because we are lazy, or disorganised, or abdicating responsibility and will in turn fail to teach our kids not to hit/share/eat well. It's because we are responsible enough to think a tiny baby's needs come before an adult's wants.

Perfect, your reasoning (not to mention your shockingly transparent need to defend your failure to implement a routine) holds no water whatsoever. No psychological damage is being done here. I know you need to tell yourself we are harming our babies in order to feel satisfaction regarding your own circumstances and parenting methods, but you are merely perpetuating falsehoods about routine-led parenting. We don't read books because we need approval of our methods; we read books to fully research sleep cycles and the structuring of naps and feeds so that contented babies can enjoy quality stretches of sleep.

Have you ever noticed how many Attachment Parenting groups there are on the web? In your town? Are there any for mums following a routine? No. That is because baby-led parenting requires lots of peer support. Sleepless nights and perpetual comfort feeding can be depressing and wearisome and fb is awash with philosophical soundbites from AP groups desperately trying to validate the chaotic nights and shattering days of their eleven-month-old babies.

No Greedy, that isn't true. On her own website GF claims to have worked with around 300 families, not a thousand plus, and they are a self selecting group, and there is no way what so ever to know how many dropped out because her methods weren't working for her - has she published any valid statistics to prove 95% of the babies she works with sleep through by such and such an age, including all babies she commences work with, regardless of outcome? I think not. She is a commercial brand, and her "evidence" base is anecdotal.

Tumble, I think you know what I meant

Hmm...like you've never prioritised a motorway journey 'even in the face of a crying child'. What do you do, Perfect?

Turn off at the nearest services, if no other option presents itself, to comfort and walk around and soothe/feed before we continue. Have done that plenty of times - also pulled off on laybys on smaller roads when possible. But here's the point you seem to repeatedly ignore: there is a difference between things you have to do (get from A to B on occasion) and things you just want to. And if you need to cite examples from necessity to justify an entirely avoidable choice, then sorry, but to my mind you don't have a point worth making.

There's also a ton of evidence that babies responded to instantly cry a lot less than those whose needs are met at inconsistent parental convenience, of course. Night waking, and yes, leaving them to cry works in terms of adult sleep. They don't cry much at night anymore. But they cry more in a 24 hour period than babies swiftly attended to.

I've repeatedly agreed that if the balance for the family (other children, work demands, risk of depression) requires a baby be left to cry at night until they work out nobody will help them, then it does. You always have to balance, in families. That's the nature of the beast. But don't try to hector women who have chosen to take the tougher route, because they genuinely believe that prioritising their baby's needs at this age is right. Don't try to imply they are lazy parents, because frankly, they aren't the ones who prefer their arses to remain on the mattress, even while their tiny baby is sobbing.

I don't know anything about groups for parenting, Greedy. I don't need to scramble about to justify my methods, using groups of women and books written by unqualified and self-appointed gurus. I have the science and anthropological research on my side, you see.

And of course I use a routine. My elder child is on the autistic spectrum, as I mentioned. If you knew anything about children on the spectrum, you'd know just how laughable those gibes are - routines are even more essential for him than for most small children. I'm a big believer in a routine for older babies, and toddlers. I just don't incorporate "lying snuggled in bed while my baby sobs" into mine. Each to their own.

Incidentally, if my sleep requirements were like my husband's, I'd have to sleep train at night. He's not just useless when sleep deprived - he'd be fired, in fact, if he woke through the night with a baby and then tried to work - he's bloody horrible, too. Usually, he's the calmest, nicest man alive. Sleep deprived, he's spiteful, angry, and aggressive. Again: babies, and parents, differ and you have to reach the best compromise for all that you can manage. But yes, I do think that if you can manage sleep deprivation (emphasis on "manage" as nobody likes it) then it's best for the baby.

I also think it's worth pointing out that this is a very brief stage in a life, and I know people who hated the baby stage but are amazing with older children. My husband being, again, an example. I don't think you scar a child for life by leaving them to cry if you compensate for that in other ways in which you are stellar. I'm sure there are a slew of ways I am crap as a parent (though ironically, not on strict bedtimes for older kids, nor mealtimes at a proper table, nutrition, kindness, manners blah blah blah - I'm fairly old-fashioned that way). But I think this way is the right one, if you can cope with it. Why the hell else would I put myself through it?

Oh, Perfect, mine were not jibes; let's be very clear on who started the 'your method is cruel' debate: You. You crossed the line by stating we routine-lovers are acting selfishly and doing harm. You started the finger-pointing. Now, go and read your posts again and ask yourself how you could possibly be helping an OP who came to ask for help in stretching out her baby's sleep.

Erm, no. That's simply wrong. In fact my first comment to you was met by a response not of "I've said nothing unpleasant" but by "she started it!"

Wasn't true then, either.

Incidentally, unless I'm misremembering, you said you'd never leave your baby to cry at night. You'd offer water, and then if that failed milk. So not sure why you're getting so angry: that's not what I disagree with. If you don't leave a distressed baby then why are you advocating/defending doing so?

Am ebfing a 3mo and in the heat he has been feeding pretty much hourly in the day. It never occurred to me, even for a second, to give him anything other than milk. I also saw a woman in town breastfeeding a toddler, probably about 2yo. And plenty of little babies having milk from bottles or breast.

Anyway, my 3mo is sleeping 7hr stretches most nights at the moment, like his big brother (also ebf) did. But I know from experience that this changes as his needs change - growth spurts, teething, illnesses, sleep regressions or whatever. I can't live according to a strict routine - I eat and drink at different times, in varying amounts and sleep more some nights than others. Babies are developing and changing all the time and they're all different. I don't expect one baby to behave the same as another baby or to do the same thing one week to the next. I'm sure weight is one factor in ability to sleep but there are loads of variables and parenting will always involve some sleep deprivation somewhere down the line. My bf babies have been pretty good, if I was really struggling to function maybe I'd have to consider sleep training but I'm grateful not to have been in that position so far.

I would say that following a routine, absolutely does not equate to leaving a baby to cry for hours, which is clearly what many people (understandably) object to. It seems to be a common misconception, that following a routine, with one of the aims being to help baby sleep longer, must require long bouts of crying. This is not so.
I have never used controlled crying. The only people I know who have done that, have done it with children well over a year and then in desperation, because their children have been waking many times in the night and wanting milk every time and because they had poor sleep associations. So actually, the people who often resort to controlled crying are actually those who have never used a routine, not those who have. By using routines from an earlyish stage, babies don't need to do controlled crying. They wake in the night when young,of course. Their daily routine of feeding and sleep is what allows them to gradually go longer in the night. When they cry in the night, it is for food and the mother or parent goes to them and feeds them. There is no suggestion of leaving a small baby to cry in the night for food. As they get bigger (heavier...returning to the original question in the thread, which the OP was interested in) they can eat a bit more in the day and this, with carefully structured sleep between 7 and 10.30 allows them to gradually sleep longer. Typically, such a baby, after 6 weeks will wake just once between 11.30 and 7. Initially it might be around 2am, but gradually get later, as they are bigger and eat more at their feeds. Eventually they sleep until perhaps 6 or even 7 and that longer stretch has been achieved, probably by around 6 months.And without lots of crying.

So, yes it does benefit the parent. And I dont think it has been achieved through leaving a baby to cry. And yes, it has benefitted the baby, because there is never any later possible need to try and break negative sleep associations. I think that most people with children who wake frequently in the night beyond about 3 or 4 have various attempts to break that cycle....and these are not easy for either parent or child. Of course, many children may just naturally sleep through from 18 months or 2 years or whenever. Fine, if you are happy to hope yours will do that and to wait until then or later if they don't.

So please don't say those using routines leave their babies to cry. That is not the idea at all. Yes, the routines benefit the parents, but the babies are certainly not harmed, as some posters are suggesting. Controlled crying as a method would never be used on small babies, and those on routines don't need it because they sleep before that point.

Again, it is parental choice about approach. People can choose to intervene and guide their baby towards sleep, or be totally baby led if they wish. Neither is wrong or cruel. The 2 approaches might have different outcomes in terms of babies sleep (which is fine, as long as parents understand the likely outcomes) but are equally valid choices.

And finally, returning to the OPs original question and latest posts, you will see that she has been using a routine. Her baby is doing great on it and sleeping 7 hours at night. She is encouraged by the routine and by what people have posted here. Her baby is just very little still and probably can't go longer yet, but if she continues as she is, given time and weight, her baby will stretch to the 8 hours she hopes for.....and no crying needed.

Oh, if a routine suits someone then that's great. I'm basically babyled when tiny, and move progressively towards a routine as they grow. By the time mine are 2 it's set bedtimes and then in bed until morning. Potty in room to avoid trips to the bathroom, too, until they're old enough to take themselves alone. I'm not against a routine, if that works for the family. After the first months, when I think breastfeeding is helped by allowing the baby to set their own, and I also think they will set one that suits their body clock which you can then run with (in reason - school runs, for example, can't be worked round a baby!) then a routine matters. I think toddlers need one, and I think best evidence supports that.

The sort of thing that (quietly) appals me is the kind of approach espoused by an Australian called Tizzie Hall. She actually says a baby who cries so hard they throw up is trying to manipulate you, and offers advice on how to vomit-proof a cot. She also says a toddler that says it needs the potty should be left in a crappy nappy until they're so fast asleep you can change them, because they are (again) just trying to manipulate you. And a good friend recommended her book to someone on Facebook recently. I bit my tongue, because not my circus, not my monkeys. Similarly, an American friend of mine posted recently that she left her 4 month old alone in his room with the door shut to cry himself to sleep, because she "knew she had to win the discipline battle". At four months old. I can't help but flinch at that - he's a tiny baby. Discipline then is just miserable.

Both their kids will be fine. They're lovely women who will offer warm, responsive, kind parenting, and over the years it'll come good. But in the meantime... I know they mean well, but I think it's cruel. And I hate that books advocating that exist, and offer an escape route from the night waking I honestly think babies usually need. Both those mothers firmly think that they are doing the right thing by their kids, and I'm afraid I just can't see it (again, unless there is more going on than I know, and their sanity/marriage demands it - not my business to question their official reasoning).

Bottom line is that parenting is just hard and we all have to do what suits us, but I don't think letting a small baby sob till they vomit is ever going to sit well with me. Nor either of you, from the sound of it.

Routine or baby-led both work. It's rigidity on the former to the point there is no empathy for the baby's emotional state that scares me.

DD is in one, btw. Goes down at around 8, stays asleep till 4 or 6, then down until 8 again. She has a rough routine for the rest of the day, though feed patterns obviously vary according to weather and where she is growth-wise. (I also offer the breast a lot in the day for very apparent reasons! She either takes it or not.) But she set that schedule, not me. I just went with it and fitted bathtime, last feed etc with it (did try a dreamfeed but it didn't alter her next waking, just added a new one!).

I think, personally, trying to marry the routine to the child works best. My eldest could never have sustained such a routine, ever - and then it turned out he couldn't eat solids until he was 7 months old, and then that he's on the spectrum so has issues with sleep, as many kids with ASD do. Trying to force him into a routine that suited me would have been a hiding to nothing. I do think it's important to pay attention to the cues from the individual child, as well as what the wider family needs.

I also think that a lot of this debate (around routines as a whole, not CIO/CC) is really about first born children. Because, for second and subsequent, particularly if there is a school run, a routine often presents itself fairly early.

My tiny son's day is already structured around a fairly fixed waking point, and in the week around school runs. By the time you add in three meals at six months, a pre-school pick up from September, etc, etc, his day will follow a fairly predictable pattern. Not necessarily the one books advocate (for example, I've read GF and think it's a bit artificial the way she has to talk about 'split naps' if babies drop off on the school run. Come on, it's just two short naps instead of a long one, so there's clearly no real magic in a long nap). But a routine.

And the parents who followed, say, GF, have to adapt it significantly for the later babies, making it much closer to what the supposedly non-routine parents are doing. Because you can't tell a five year old and three year old on their holidays that they can't go to a farm park because their baby sibling might drop off at the wrong time in the car. Or at least, if you do, you are making a very strong choice about priorities.

That will be true of most babies with older siblings. So the gulf between routine based parenting and go-with-the-flow isn't nearly as massive as it sometimes seems.

I've nothing against GF by the way, although it would never have worked for us and I don't believe in scheduled feeding. But the routines she suggests in her baby and toddler book are very much what ends up happening anyway with a baby and toddler, at least up to about 6pm.

I think that there are babies who respond better to having a routine and some for which the only way forward is to go with the flow.

I had one of the former, so although I have often felt judged for using GF books, it was the right thing for DS. He was much calmer when he knew what was coming next, a change in the routine and even his eczema went absolutely wild.

Having said that, we relaxed the routines gradually once he became a toddler. He has survived unscathed.

And for those who think babies are left to cry to sleep every night if the parents are following GF books, this is not true. It took DS 15 minutes on the first day, 10 in the second and 5 in the third, after that he was smiley when put to bed and asleep within a few minutes.

He definitively cried more in the times that we were putting him in and out of the cot for almost an hour trying to help him settle.

But again, routines suit some babies, not all of them.

I have never sleep trained my dcs. I would say I have encouraged healthy sleep patterns and good sleep hygiene from newborn. There is a difference. For the record I have never left a baby to cry for more than 5 minutes ( twice in the case of ds aged about 6 weeks when he had skipped his 4pm nap and was overtired and never in the case of dd, who loves her sleep).

About 9kgs (5months) we'd startled weaning (giving porridge for dinner) and were ff.