randomv

Hi Lots of good advice already, but FWIW 1) I wouldn't worry about the milk. You can't make him drink it and as long as you supplement with plenty of dairy in his meals/snacks he should be fine. My friend's son was weaned from bf at a year and he resolutely refused to drink any sort of milk (cows, goats, formula etc) In fact he'd been a bottle refuser since birth. Anyway he is now a very happy, healthy and BIG strapping 4 year old whose had no ill effects. He just doesn't like milk!! 2) When my LO dropped the morning nap I started by giving him a very early lunch, then an early nap for 2 hours, say 11.45 and then an early bedtime (6.30) so that he wasn't too overtired. I gradually moved the lunch, nap and bedtime on by 15 mins a day over about 5 days til we got back to normal. Even so, he was very tired late morning for quite a while, and lunch never got past 11.30am for AGES or he was too tired to eat. If we were out in buggy or car late morning he would always fall asleep. I just let him have a 5-10 min catnap and put him down a bit later for his nap when that happened. HTH and happy holidays!

I'd second Merlins in Crystal Palace. They do other makes of shoes with width measurements (my LO is a G) and have some 'good' summer shoes for toddlers too, although that may depend on where baby SB is on the cruising/walking scale. I got a brand called Garvin there for my LO which Ive been v happy with.

Freecycle?

It's very interesting as obviously every family situation is unique. Can I see myself slaving away maki g purees should I have another baby? Unlikely. But what if I have another very hungry child like this one? I imagine it'd be even more difficult to breast feed a hungry 7 month old on demand because they aren't getting enough solids. and what about the effects of that on everyones sleep? Wouldn't it be a nightmare looking after 2 very young children on months of broken sleep due to night feeds, and that's not even considering work of the paid variety! I agree with the up to one just for fun idea to an extent and yes, nutritionally breast milk is usually sufficient but that doesn't mean it satisfies the hunger of big, hungry babies. It comes down to taking bits of ideas from here and her that work in your individual circumstances.

I must admit I've always been baffled by baby led weaning. I gave my son pureed food from 6 months - he was hungry and didn't have the motor skills or nouse to pick up food and get it in his mouth..seemed a bit like putting him a car on his 18th birthday and telling him to drive without having any lessons! I always made finger food available so he could improve his skills and of course soon enough he only wanted to feed himself so the spooning of purees stopped - what could be more baby led than following his lead like that?! Obviously all babies and families are different but BLW definitely wasn't for us and I now have a gannet of a toddler who'll eat almost anything whatever texture etc. Good luck with the weaning Laura!

candj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have noticed with mine that if they > missed their nap or had a shorter than usual nap > for whatever reason that their night time sleep > was greatly affected. One would think that they > would sleep better if they didn't sleep in the day > but my two would fall asleep immediately and would > be more restless during the night (causing us to > have disturbed night of sleep). Totally agree! If we go out and about and my LO has less than usual sleep I always put him to bed early - otherwise he cries himself to sleep and has a very restless night AND an even earlier morning. Makes no sense but it happens here without a doubt! Funny little critters that they are.

I had a terrible sleeper who I often breast fed to sleep until I implemented a routine and stopped night feeds at 8 months. Since then we've had a handful of disrupted nights, mostly down to colds or teething. A friend of mine took her bad sleeper to Sleep Clinic (!) at around 11 months and was told to firstly adopt a daytime nap schedule that was appropriate to his age and stop feeding to sleep during the day. She was to continue feeding at night initially so that LO got used to a long period of rest and so that there wasn't too much change happening at once. In fact she found that immediately she sorted the daytimes the nights drastically improved and he only woke once for a feed. When this was stabilized she then stopped feeding him at night and just comforted him if he woke - which he didn't often do. I'm a firm believer in day and night sleep being related and in the importance of a consistent bedtime routine. I also believe (but I know this is not for everyone) that older babies do need to be gently guided in how to settle and resettle themselves when they wake. For us it was the Pick Up Put Down method that worked.

Hi We use the Graco compact for our now toddler. I got a extra mattress to make it nice and comfy as he's always been a big boy. I did initially buy a liter life tent style travel cot but found it too back breaking getting him in and out when he woke at night. Also would agree with Helena Handbasket on the added practicality of being able to use the traditional travel cot as a playpen or safe place to leave baby - been invaluable to me in that sense once mini Random started crawling.

Not sure of a specific restaurant that is child friendly in the evenings but as a general rule I'd say go Italian. Most kids love pasta and most Italians love kids! Hope someone else has some more specific advice for you though.

canadianlisa Wrote: > I had a look at the bit at the back and I think if > I've read it right (which I may not have due to > tiredness) it says to do the 10 minute, > reassurance thing and if this doesn't work then, > for naptime, try to get them to sleep for the > alloted 2 > hours by whatever means necessary- going for a > walk, picking them up etc. I think the idea is > that they will then realise it's naptime and that > eventually you will be able to put them down. Or > if it fails, then to add another nap. God it all > feels a bit complicated but I am sure it will come > together. > > Just out of curiousity- did everyone ensure that > their baby's room had none of the dreaded 'chinks > of light' coming in. Did it make a difference? x The getting LO to sleep even if it means going out for a walk or whatever is one thing, as it helps to reset the body clock and get him/her used to sleeping at those times but what i was really referring to is where she suggests that if the lunch time nap goes wrong you shoudl allow an extra 30 mins nap after the 2.30pm feed and again at 4.30pm because a really young baby will not get to bedtime on so little sleep. There are some other suggestions on how to tweak the routine on days when the naps go wonky.It's about 2 pages from the back of the book. Re chinks of light, we just got an ikea blackout blind. It's definitely not chink proof! But as I said on a previous post I think the reason such importance is placed on it is to totally eliminate light as a possible cause of waking. jojobaby, it's more of an 11 hour sleep in our house (all babies are different!) and we're very happy thanks. I've not left my baby to cry to achieve this. It is my belief (although it may not be yours which is fine) that one of my roles as a parent is to gently bring my baby from the 24 hour sleeping/feeding availability in the womb into what our society accepts as the day. For mums who go back to work this needs to be done sooner rather than later. You seem to be very closed minded about what works for others, obsessed with telling us what happens in your house, and disinterested in answering anyone's questions toyou. Just an observation.

Canadianlisa I think there's a bit at the end of the book about what to do when naps don't go to plan and it involves another nap in the afternoon to make up for the lost sleep. We did GF routine but followed the Baby Whisper sshh pat and pick up put down techniques for teaching self soothing. However I have found that timing is crucial so it may be that just putting your LO down 5 mins earlier can make the different. FWIW I did subscribe to the CLB website when my LO was a baby as he'd got to the waking every 45 mins day ornight stage and I was going insane with tiredness. I got some totally invaluable advice from very experienced Gina mums there on so many issues, even after we'd got the sleep sorted which has made a huge difference to our routines so to me it seemed like a better investment than the stack of cash I was ready to pay a night nanny to come and help us. Good luck and as pp am happy to help if I can by PM

LOL!!! R&A Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .. i suggest for next week's 'EDF family room book > club' meeting we discuss Contented Little Baby? > > Any takers? Babies welcome of course. > > N.B I'm free any of the following time slots > 11am-2pm, 3:30-5pm or after 7pm? > > > ;)

Jojobaby - it appears to me that you are far less flexible in your views on routines for children than "we" (the mums who use them) are about adapting them to suit our lifestyles at any particular time. I have taken my LO to things in the evening and he will usualy sleep through part of it but to be honest as a pp said, he is knackered by 7pm and needs to sleep. He needs more than 9 hours sleep at night (that's an adult portion) and probably 13-14 hours in a day. IMHO there is not much more upsetting than a child who is in desperate need of sleep but has to stay awake, espeically if it's to serve his parent's social life! So to answer your question, I would avoid evening things unless really important, or one of us would stay home with the baby. I'm willing to put my life "on hold" like this because his needs come first and this time is so short and precious. Generally speaking though we adapt the routine for a few days. so we may not have a family meal in the evening but adults take a brunch and then have our family meal at around 5pm which is children's tea-time. There will be many years ahead in which young children can stay up late and socialise, they don't have to be rushed as babies or toddlers. I know - shockingly selfish of us isn't it?!! As it happens none of my family are British, (southern European) so I have many cousins etc overseas. In my experience their lives are very diffferent to us in the UK, especially those of us here in London. Typically grandparents are on hand and help in looking after children if mum has to work. So yeah, a toddler in Italy may be up til 10pm to spend time with the family, but they are cared for in the home by day and can therefore have more sleep structured through the day to compensate. Something to aspire to perhaps but not really possible when mum has to work and baby/toddler goes to nursery so has to be up by 7.30am and is only given an hour or two to nap during the day. And what about when the toddler goes to pre-school or primary school? There is no afternoon nap built into the day in UK schools. Jojobaby I just saw your latest post. I think you're right in that it's a shame that so many women feel they don't have the support they would traditionally have had, but the fact is that for many of us our mothers are either far away, passed away or (and you can't underestimate this one) not particularly good role models themselves. I'm delighted for you that you have such an idyllic family life, really I am. Clearly you are a very talented woman. If only you could direct some of that talent towards being more accepting of other women's parenting choices..

The sigh was because it's exhasperating having to defend every single thing I write on this thread, even when I was clearly being a bit tongue in cheek (hence the winking smiley). It's also annoying to have to constantly state that the things that have been written which are misinformed, in fact out and out mistruths which give an inaccurate portrayal of the way in which I and others choose to raise their children.Incidentally I have never ever criticised other forms of parenting. As for out and out facts and research to prove things (even though I've already said I was bieng tongue in cheek)..well as I recall from previous threads on this forum (homeopathic immunisations springs to mind) there are some people here who can dispute the most overwhelming evidence if it doesn't fit in with their pre-conceived and ill-informed ideas anyway. Derisory? Denigrating? Unpleasant? A Nutter? I'm really none of those things and I've read and re-read what I've written to see how you could say that. Oh well, it's clear that my writing style is not welcome on the ED Forum. Never been the most prolific of posters, more of a lurker really, but I've had enough of the hyper-sensitive over-reaction that I seem to provoke whenever I try and explain anything.

sillywoman Wrote: > Well, I don't think you can say your anecdote is > 'certainly more accurate' than other people's > claims. Nothing is ever that definite with babies > and routines. Their claims are just as valid as > yours randomv - even if your experience suggests > their methods haven't worked for you. It's worked > for them, and therefor should not be treated so > dismissively. *sighs and takes deep breath* The claims I am referring to are those which are made about the topic in discussion and which are not true. e.g. Gina Ford promotes leaving your baby to cry in a darkened room and not showing affection. These are incorrect and misinformed opinions of the routines asserted by people who have usually not read the books. And I think my comment was quite clearly tongue in cheek. I despair. ETA although re the claim about babies crying. All babies cry of course, it's their only way of communicating. But surely there is an arguement that baby-led parenting inevitably leads to more crying - it's their only real way of telling you they are hungry, tired, cold, distracted by chinks of light or whatever. Just some lateral thought from a nutter and really not an attack on baby-led parenting..I am very much in the each to their own camp.

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's some lovely advice in this thread . . .and > some who come across in print as judgmental > nutters (jojobaby & randomv). Judgemental nutter? Blimey is that how I come across? I've not slated anybody else's parenting style and I would never do that. I've merely sought to correct some of the misconceptions and inaccuracies that I believe I have read. This is one crazy forum..

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > randomv Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As it happens, CLB babies often cry less becuase > they > > are fed before they are hungry and the routines > > don't lead them to get overtired... > > Hmmm, where does this claim come from & is there > research to back it up? > Sillwoman - 100% anecdotal evidence from myself and a number of other mums who've followed the CLB. Not entirely scientific but certainly more accurate than some of the claims I've read on here tonight..;-)

Sorry Keef I think you are taking my post personally which was not my intention. The "anti-Gina brigade" I referred to was in relation to the wider discussion that was taking place on this thread and currently in much of the media. The fact that this thread is now getting heated is a demonstration of how strongly people feel on both sides of the Gina argument. As you say, live and let live and I am 100% pro parents making the choice that suits them. All I ask is that we have an accurate portrayal of what the CLB is about, what it contains etc. Comments about leaving babies to cry for hours on end, possible psychological damage etc etc is not only misinformed (let me be the zillionth person to state that I do not leave mine, the book specifically says you shouldn't leave a baby to cry etc etc) but also a perfect demonstration of why this debate becomes so passionate. So many of the mums I have met will slate but in the CLB but it turns out they haven't read it. They just rely on things like this that they read and that are inaccurate. Others I've met have read and followed the guidelines and have found them to be a godsend. There's no right or wrong here. Candj - i think the idea behind the pitch black room is to eliminate light getting in and distraction as a cause for the baby waking. Jojobaby - again I ask, do you think that the Gina mums actually leave their babies screaming in their cots and don't pick them up, cuddle, love, lavish with affection just as much as mums who choose a non routine based day? Really do you think that? How hugely insulting to all of us?

Snowboarder - it's totally wrong that anybody should make you feel like you are a failure when you are clearly doing what's right for you and your baby, but seriously are you saying that Gina Ford makes you feel like that? Or other mums and are they all CLB followers? Personally I find that as a Gina mum I'm judged as being somehow caring less about my baby than parents who choose a different parenting style which is equally inaccurate and just as offensive (and I suspect why we all feel the need to shout so loud when our chosen method comes under fire) Such as the ridiculous suggestion that following the CLB means you have no gorgeous snuggly memories of your little baby (jojobaby) or that the baby is "an annoyance that should be seen and not heard" (Keef)Do people really believe that we leave our babies screaming in their cots until the book says it's time to get them up?!? As it happens, CLB babies often cry less becuase they are fed before they are hungry and the routines don't lead them to get overtired...

Keef The CLB does not encourage the use of Controlled Crying. It is clearly stated that it is sometimes appropriate as a last resort in children of 6 months and over who have developed poor sleep associations. Prior to that Gina encourages ssshing and patting (much like the Baby Whisperer) and advises that should your baby fall asleep whilst feeding you should gently rouse him/her prior to placing in the cot. Again, much as the Baby Whisperer does. I think the difference between these two is very much in the writing style. Gina goes for a no-nonsense straightforward style that obviously gets some people's backs up, e.g. Not making eye contact. Doesn't the baby whisperer say something similar about avoiding stimulating your baby prior to bedtime and for the dream feed? Back to controlled crying and in fact I would argue that Gina mums are far less likely to have to resort to it because we know whehter our babies are actually hungry or crying through tiredness etc and the CLB book encourages finding every possible cause before embarking on any course of sleep training (and there are others, not just CC which is always advised as a last resort) R&A - like you I had no idea at first that babies should only be awake for up to 2 hours at a time and it wasn't until I read it in the CLB - I thought they'd just fall asleep when they were tired! As a new mum I found the hardest thing was to suss out what my baby was crying for and for me the CLB really did give me the tools to be able to do that. I know have a very happy and yes, contented, toddler.

What annoys me about the anti-Gina brigade is that they can't make up their minds. Either we are selfish and "refuse to put their lives on hold" for a few years or we're slaves to the routine and can't go out and meet friends for lunch when we are at our lonliest because it interferes with the lunchtime nap. As a Gina mum I don't think either of these points of view are in the slightest bit true.What I do think is that we have to select the parenting style that suits each of our families. Some of us choose to try and pre-empt what our babies need by structuring their feeds and sleeps and others elect to follow their babies lead. The assumption that I don't have similarly gorgeous memories to jojobaby of my children because I structure the day is ridiculous! By all means burn the CLB book if you like but at least READ it first so you can see for yourself nowhere does it advocate leaving babies to cry, not making eye contact and generally adopting a Victorian-style distance from your baby.

Forgive me if I'm being dim, but the article seems to be questioning the veracity of parents' claims that their babies sleep through on the basis that we all wake up several times a night anyway. Isn't this just nitpicking at semantics to try and prove a point? We all wake up several times, and put ourselves back to sleep. As adults we feel better and more refreshed next day when the gaps between these sleep cycles are short, usually so short that we aren't aware of them. Doesn't it therefore stand to reason that babies and toddlers will also feel better having had the same? I'm no advocate of leaving young babies to "cry it out" but some babies do cry because they are overtired and they want to be asleep, not because they want or need to be held or fed or have a comforter. I definitely had one of those from about 8 months of age and HE is much happier now that he is getting consistent sleep (including the 2 hours post-lunch!) Not trying to knock any style of parenting here..have tried several approaches and found the one that works for our family which is all we can do at the end of the day.

Also on Purley Way (at the very top) is Baby Nest http://www.baby-nest.co.uk/ Plenty of prams in-store to try and very friendly helpful staff. I got my car seat and second buggy from there and would definitely go back. Also my top tip, I got the internet price (slightly cheaper than in store and competitive with Kiddicare) in-store just by asking so well worth it! HTH

I'm a SAHM since having my baby although the decision was made for me since I was made redundant. I'm really glad this happened because as others have said, this time passes so quickly. My redunancy pay has given us a bit of breathing space although we can probably exist on one salary (just no foreign holidays for a while) but I keep toying with whehter or not I should work. I've come to the decision that for us, it's best that I'm home with our LO for the forseeable future, not least because it's so hard to make the reality of working financially rewarding (after commute, childcare etc etc). I don't want to be so stressed and rushed all the time that I spend the one hour a day I spend with LO shouting at him to eat his breakfast or something! The thing I kept coming back to was a sense of failure for not going back...for not even trying to juggle everything. I think this is kind of expected of us nowadays. When I speak to my friends who are working 3 or 4 days a week however, they all say the same thing: they feel under immense pressure and that they don't feel as if they are doing anything (ie work or parenting) as well as they would like to be. It's a tough decision and there's no right or wrong answer - just whatever works best for you as a family. Regarding your career, I'm sure there are possibilities to go back later, or maybe your changed priorities will lead you towards something different career-wise? Best of luck! ETA: Assuming many of us have moved to London rather than raised here (maybe presumptious?) I think our experiences differ from our parents in that working in town makes it so difficult to be back home to pick up junior do tea/bath/bed etc at a reasonble time. My friends who work in my town of birth can finish work at 5pm and be home with child 30-45 mins later which isn;t usually the case here.

Waybuloo on Sky+ !!