All Things Babywise / The Ezzo is a Horrible Human Being

[VelociRapture]

Because people are getting tired of this discussion taking place in the thread concerning all things Dill. Please continue the conversation here.

Play nice! :)

[DGayle]

So we've got 1 person who thinks that common-sense parenting, ie feeding and soothing a hungry or scared baby, is Ezzo's idea, which is insulting to generations of parents who were already doing that. We have at least 1 swearing that Babywise is all about the child's natural schedule instead of the parents setting the schedule, and at least 1 person who doesn't understand why literally every pediatrics board in the world that has spoken on it, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, has warned parents not to do it because of the very elevated chance that a baby will fail to thrive and could die. I'll leave it up to your guess if these are all the same 1 person or not.

Babywise is as dangerous as TTUAC. Just 1 is all about outright neglect if meeting a need isn't convenient for the parents, and the other is about whipping kids if what they're doing isn't convenient for the parents.

Both started within churches, which say a lot, in my opinion.

[princessmahina]

Erika Shupe endorses it for Erika-approved babies. *smile*

That's all the encouragement I need to never use it on my future babies.

[Librul]

VelociRapture, are you a mod?

[Howl]

Using the Ezzo method, babies can also cry so hard to be fed that they can become dangerously dehydrated. It made my stomach hurt when I read that Erika Shupe used "parent directed feeding" (I think that was the term). I'm guessing that her husband's parents went off the rails when they realized what Erika was up to with this and that is part of her problem she has with her in laws.

[Snarkylark]

Lol I'm only one person and have only posted as such. It was hard enough to set up one account, much less three(?) like you're suggesting. Smh

[Snarkylark]

If you don't want to get your baby on a schedule then fine. Don't do it. Establishing a routine is not the same as child neglect or abuse like blanket training is.

[IronicallyMaeve]

I'm an adult and I eat when I'm hungry.

[happy atheist]

VelociRapture, are you a mod?

Nope, but she's allowed to start a thread.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I've actually read the Babywise book (given to me by a completely nonreligious acquaintance, btw) and it didn't take me long to decide that this was NOT the method I was going to use. I can see where putting a baby on a schedule has some benefits, but I can't imagine adhering to anything as rigid as the Ezzo method. The way I read it, their suggestions seemed to be geared toward putting the baby on a schedule that may or may not work for the child so that the parents can have a schedule that works for them.

I figured my baby gave cues for a reason, and ignoring his needs just seemed cruel to me.

[DaisyD]

I read baby wise as a very new, very exhausted mother and thought it had some good points. I did put my son on a loose version of the schedule. Mostly what I took from it was to make sure the baby was actually hungry before you feed them. My son had a very strong such reflex that didn't always mean he was hungry. The idea of holding off on popping a boob in his mouth when he cried probably saved my sanity. He adjusted to eating every three hours very easily. If he cried before then I would change his diaper, then try to distract him, then give him a pacifier, if he still cried I fed him, three hours or not. What the schedule did was allow me to leave him at the house with dad while walked across the street for groceries, or did some laundry, or took a fucking nap. I see how it could be dangerous with people who have less common sense, but for me it really helped knowing I didn't have yo be attached to him every second. Flame away.

[16strong]

Nope, but she's allowed to start a thread.

:clap:

[Snarkylark]

All I can say is that "preparation for parenting" was a life saver. I had no clue about how to take care of a baby when I had my first at 20. I haven't read the book but understand it is the secular version of the series I listened to. It was 19 years ago that I listened to the tapes (haha) and I never recall hearing them say not to respond to your baby's cries or withhold feedings if the baby is hungry before "scheduled." The recommendation is that you actually wake your baby around the clock for the first few weeks while establishing milk supply. The biggest thing I remember taking away from it was the feed, wake, sleep cycle during the day and setting cues for your baby at night to help establish night time sleep. My first did not sleep through the night at 6 weeks, not even close. It was more like 4 months. And she was a super easy baby. There is nothing wrong with letting a baby fuss a little bit before settling down. I was not going to be a sleep prop for my kids. I wanted them to have the skills they needed to fall asleep, stay asleep, and fall back to sleep by themselves if they woke up before they were hungry again. I'm sorry, but I don't see that as abuse. Can some parents abuse it? Absolutely, just as with anything you have some idiots who don't know how to take care of a dog, much less a baby. That's on them, not the writer of some book.

[VelociRapture]

VelociRapture, are you a mod?

Nope. I don't have the patience required for that (seriously, I'm starting to wonder if the Mods and Helpmeets are secretly superheroes in disguise). I just help out around the site when it looks like a new thread needs to be started or people look like they're straying from the few rules there are (and I totally encourage people to do the same to me as well - if I'm out of line or breaking a rule, let me know so I don't keep fucking up!) :)

[EmmieJ]

All I can say is that "preparation for parenting" was a life saver. I had no clue about how to take care of a baby when I had my first at 20. I haven't read the book but understand it is the secular version of the series I listened to. It was 19 years ago that I listened to the tapes (haha) and I never recall hearing them say not to respond to your baby's cries or withhold feedings if the baby is hungry before "scheduled." The recommendation is that you actually wake your baby around the clock for the first few weeks while establishing milk supply. The biggest thing I remember taking away from it was the feed, wake, sleep cycle during the day and setting cues for your baby at night to help establish night time sleep. ....

I would disagree with this as well (the bolded part). I think it's crazy to wake up a sleeping baby, just because you want them to get on a set feeding schedule. For goodness sakes, about the only time in our human lives where humans sometimes have a brief moment to do what our bodies are telling us to do, is as newborn infants (before it gets "trained" right out of us). Babies sleep when they are tired and need sleep. They cry when they are hungry, wet, colicky, or otherwise need comforting. Why can't parents at least allow their babies a few months to settle into life and let them eat when hungry and sleep when tired? My goodness, they will have the rest of their entire lives in which they must conform to some schedule or another.

Seriously, wake your baby up to feed him/her???? That's really lousy advice. When your baby has had enough sleep and is hungry, he/she will wake up and let you know. Too bad if that isn't convenient, but parenting isn't convenient. It's a real pain in the ass sometimes. If you aren't up for the challenge, maybe you (generic you, not anyone here in particular) might want to re-think the whole parenting thing. And guess what? Infancy is kind of the easy part! They can't even roll over or crawl yet, much less become angsty teenagers who are horribly embarrassed by their mom, who apparently knows nothing and it's a miracle she doesn't get lost driving home from the grocery store.

Anyway, this book sounds like it should be thrown in the trash.

[Snarkylark]

I would disagree with this as well (the bolded part). I think it's crazy to wake up a sleeping baby, just because you want them to get on a set feeding schedule. For goodness sakes, about the only time in our human lives where humans sometimes have a brief moment to do what our bodies are telling us to do, is as newborn infants (before it gets "trained" right out of us). Babies sleep when they are tired and need sleep. They cry when they are hungry, wet, colicky, or otherwise need comforting. Why can't parents at least allow their babies a few months to settle into life and let them eat when hungry and sleep when tired? My goodness, they will have the rest of their entire lives in which they must conform to some schedule or another.

Seriously, wake your baby up to feed him/her???? That's really lousy advice. When your baby has had enough sleep and is hungry, he/she will wake up and let you know. Too bad if that isn't convenient, but parenting isn't convenient. It's a real pain in the ass sometimes. If you aren't up for the challenge, maybe you (generic you, not anyone here in particular) might want to re-think the whole parenting thing. And guess what? Infancy is kind of the easy part! They can't even roll over or crawl yet, much less become angsty teenagers who are horribly embarrassed by their mom, who apparently knows nothing and it's a miracle she doesn't get lost driving home from the grocery store.

Anyway, this book sounds like it should be thrown in the trash.

You wake them in the beginning to help establish a good milk supply. It's not just this book that gives that recommendation. If you're formula feeding then you probably wouldn't need to do that. It's not about scheduling, it's about ensuring good milk supply. Some newborns sleep too much (it takes a lot of energy and calories to nurse) for whatever reason and won't be stimulating the breasts enough to make milk at that critical time.

[Hane]

My pediatrician said the effort a newborn expends during the birth process can be exhausting for him/her. If a baby is sleeping so much s/he isn't gaining weight or having enough wet/messy diapers, s/he may need to be awakened occasionally. My baby slept like a rock for hours the day we took her home from the hospital--and my breasts turned into rocks, too.

And, daisyd681, no flames from me. If a relaxed schedule worked for you, great.

[DaisyD]

Thank you Hane. :)

It's also to helps them differentiate between day time and night time. I never woke him at night, but I would during the day. He was taking a long nap during the day and then staying up all night (which as a teenager he's doing again after school). My goal was to get enough calories into him during the day that he could sleep longer at night. My daughter got into a rhythm all on her own so I stuck with hers.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

The only reason to schedule a baby like this is for the parent's convenience. It is not beneficial to the baby's emotional or physical health, and scheduled feedings are the complete opposite of what the medical community recommends, which is feeding on demand.

Furthermore, placing a tiny baby who depends on you for all of its needs in their crib while awake and then forcing it to fall asleep on its own, after exhausting itself crying, is cruel and negligent and lazy. And that is exactly what the book recommends. It says don't nurse or rock to sleep because then that's a crutch your baby will get used to. The entire concept revolves around forcing the child to bend to your schedule instead of meeting its needs.

[Grimalkin]

I remember a mom recommending that book to me and me grabbing a copy at a used book sale. I tried the whole cry it out thing once with my oldest when she was like 10 or 11 months old, she just got angrier and angrier and a half hour later I went and got her. Poor little thing, never tried that again. I seem to always see that book at used book sales and thrift shops.

[Snarkylark]

The only reason to schedule a baby like this is for the parent's convenience. It is not beneficial to the baby's emotional or physical health, and scheduled feedings are the complete opposite of what the medical community recommends, which is feeding on demand.

Furthermore, placing a tiny baby who depends on you for all of its needs in their crib while awake and then forcing it to fall asleep on its own, after exhausting itself crying, is cruel and negligent and lazy. And that is exactly what the book recommends. It says don't nurse or rock to sleep because then that's a crutch your baby will get used to. The entire concept revolves around forcing the child to bend to your schedule instead of meeting its needs.

Feeding a baby on demand is different than feeding a baby because it cries. Sometimes my babies fell asleep while nursing. That's fine and appropriate sometimes. The problem is when a baby nurses for 5 minutes, falls asleep, and then wakes up in 20 minutes wanting to be fed again...and over and over. Baby never gets a full stomach this way and it's a vicious cycle. Again, for the first two weeks or so, fine. But beyond that when a milk supply is established, baby is growing and gaining weight appropriately, it makes sense to make sure feedings are just that- feedings, not snacks or a crutch to fall asleep. I have known people who do this beyond the newborn phase (4, t, 6 months, etc) and their children (4-11) still can't get to sleep on their own. Smh

There's no mention from what I can recall of letting a newborn (birth to x# of weeks) scream incessantly if it isn't time to feed or to make it go to sleep. If there is I certainly didn't do that with my babies and blocked that from my memory. Sometimes they fuss a little bit. That's normal infant behavior. Are you suggesting parents never let their baby cry? See how well that works with a colicky baby!

[formergothardite]

One thing that many people who support Babywise don't realize is that there have been many, many editions of Babywise because Ezzo has pretty much been continually forced to take out some of his really shitty advice. One edition told parents to ignore the advice to put babies on their backs to sleep and instead stick with his advice to keep babies on their stomachs because they sleep better. Some editions told parents to leave babies when were very small to cry for up to an hour. Some editions warned that parents who held and comforted their babies often instead of letting them cry were causing emotional damage to the baby. One edition said that mothers who fed their babies more often than Ezzo recommended were going to get post-partum depression. Some editions gave incorrect advice on how to judge if a baby is eating enough. In one edition he listed a study that he claimed proved his advice was the right way to "train" a baby, but the person who did the study says that it actually proved the opposite and Ezzo took things out of context and to make it seem like the study supported him. Ezzo claims that his feeding advice is exactly what the AAP advises, but what is really happening is that the upper feeding amounts that Ezzo recommends are the absolute lowest the AAP advises(or at least that is how it used to be, he might have changed that by now). Yes, there are babies who will thrive with that few of feedings, but there are plenty who will not. And in many Babywise editions it isn't clear that is advice is the minimum you should feed your baby.

One must wonder why Ezzo has such issues giving out horrible advice, and the answer is that he isn't an expert in babies, children or anything related to child development. He is a pastor who started a for profit industry to make money off churches and then decided to branch out into the secular market.

ETA: To show how awful Ezzo is, when he first started his baby training programs he told parents to not discuss with their doctors what he was teaching them. One of his early editions of either Babywise or the "Christian" version, Growing Kids God's Way, books told parents that outside of feedings and changings they only needed to spend 15 minutes a day with interacting with their babies and that if they spent more they were going to create a selfisih child. Instead there were children who had attachment disorders because their parents followed Ezzo's advice.

[tankgirl]

Feeding a baby on demand is different than feeding a baby because it cries. Sometimes my babies fell asleep while nursing. That's fine and appropriate sometimes. The problem is when a baby nurses for 5 minutes, falls asleep, and then wakes up in 20 minutes wanting to be fed again...and over and over. Baby never gets a full stomach this way and it's a vicious cycle. Again, for the first two weeks or so, fine. But beyond that when a milk supply is established, baby is growing and gaining weight appropriately, it makes sense to make sure feedings are just that- feedings, not snacks or a crutch to fall asleep. I have known people who do this beyond the newborn phase (4, t, 6 months, etc) and their children (4-11) still can't get to sleep on their own. Smh

There's no mention from what I can recall of letting a newborn (birth to x# of weeks) scream incessantly if it isn't time to feed or to make it go to sleep. If there is I certainly didn't do that with my babies and blocked that from my memory. Sometimes they fuss a little bit. That's normal infant behavior. Are you suggesting parents never let their baby cry? See how well that works with a colicky baby!

Where did you get that advice? I have never heard any of this besides in scheduling books like Babywise. None of it is true.

#1 Milk supply takes longer to establish then 2 weeks, more like 6-8 weeks at least. As growth spurts and preparation for when they are older all start to establish at this point.

#2 No matter how many times it is said feeding to sleep is not a crutch or a bad habit. It is a anthropological norm. One thing to keep in mind milk at night is filled with sleep hormones. A baby fed to sleep will not fed to sleep forever.

#3 Babies when responded too, on their schedules, cry less, and tend to be more independent and better able to handle their emotions when older.

I can go on, but I wont. I wont change your mind, as you would like to think you did the best you could for your kids. But I would hate a new Mum to see your post and believe this is true when its just not.

I respond to my kids, follow their schedules and with no crying, have been able to leave them from a young age with family, get rest and get to the gym even. But I did it within their schedule and follow age appropriate recommendations, and expectations.

Babywise is not scientifically backed. His kids don't have contact with him. It is a poor way to keep up breastfeeding and is blamed for early weaning, supply issues and of course failure to thrive. Sorry, the science backs this as bad advice. In fact they had to go back and change some wording, because of legal issues. It is a bad way to bond. Erica and her cold, distant, scheduled to the second parenting, is pretty much, all the reason this book is bad, as she is pretty much a star pupil.

Eta, I realized part of my issue, is too many people, are too quick to give young babies the benefit of thinking they have higher skills and thinking then they do. The same logic that says babies can self soothe, create bad habits, also line up too often with those who think babies can be manipulative, or even sin. Babies do not function like small adults. Unless this is realized too often books like these will keep being shared for worry they will create bad babies, instead of looking at the science and trying to build their brains to create well balanced adults.

[Snarkylark]

Ugh I had a post typed out and lost it. I admitted earlier that I haven't read "Babywise," I had the Preparation for parenting series. I don't know about earlier versions of the books so I can't speak to that. I can say that I nursed my kids for over a year and didn't have any children fail to thrive or jaundiced, etc. If he has amended the books to remove anything that is incorrect then what's the problem? There are a lot of parenting styles even within the same family with children. There's nothing wrong with trying to establish a routine as long as baby is well nourished and cared for.

[Snarkylark]

Can we also agree that the AAP advised against co- sleeping and many of you have admitted to doing that. Can we accept that labeling something across the board as bad, when it can be done responsibly, is wrong?or do you just pick and choose which AAP recommendations you'll follow? Can we accept that there is some leeway? I should say that co-sleeping can kill your baby a lot faster than your baby could die from malnourishment. We're talking minutes here, not days.