All Things Babywise / The Ezzo is a Horrible Human Being

[mango_fandango]

I don't have kids, but I don't think I'd be able to leave a tiny baby crying.

Also, I agree with everyone who says that not picking up a baby and cuddling it can have serious consequences, i.e. emotional problems. Soon after I was born, I acquired jaundice and had to spend two days in a bili box. My mum could only take me out for feeding and changing purposes. She wanted to cuddle me, but couldn't. I just don't get why people would willingly leave a baby, just for their convenience. How could anyone be so cold-hearted?

[August]

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.

And it dudn't give you any idea of how to take care of a baby.

As of the mid 2000s he was still advising to let newborns cry if it wasn't scheduled feeding time. I wasn't even a parent or pregnant when I read it and it was horrifying. To give you an idea how awful he is, I read the one with EASY around the same time and thought that sounded sensible (it's not, it's awful for breastfed babies because of the schedule thing, if they sleep for more than 45 min, then more often than not they eat twice while awake, and she totally ignores cluster feeding)

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.

Before you go around telling people this book is in any way not evil you need to go and read it. Because it does say all of those things you don't remember it saying.

Even waking the baby around the clock for weeks is shitty advice, and likely recommended because the baby's being starved during the day by the schedule. A baby with a responsive parent will often end up eating more often during the day and less often at night, but if their calories are restricted during the day they need to make up for it at night.

Normal babies can be left to sleep as soon as they've regained their birthweight (unless you try rollover feeds).

. I was active duty when my son was born and I credit the schedule for being able to provide all the milk he needed. I would pump at work while he ate at the sitter's so we stayed in sync. My milk was like clockwork.

See, this is why Ezzo sucks. He just goes on and on with the threats and never gives you the information to make your own descisions. Which

i suppose fits with the dominionist religious ohilosophy. You should be submitting to his authority, not making your own decisions.

Taking milk from a bottle is different to taking milk from a breast. It's easier, faster, and intake is measurable. When a baby normally takes ten ounces between 8 and 6 and today they've had 8 ounces by noon it's easy and fair to try and avoid feeding for a little while. From a breast you don't know if you're stressed today and haven't had a letdown so the baby is starving hungry even though you've latched them on twenty times.

When pumping, again, you can see how much you have gotten, and it makes sense to pump at regular intervals. You're not feeding or comforting someone, you're removing milk to maximise/optimise production. Everyone pumps on a schedule. Everyone. And then they meet their baby at the end of the day and nurse on demand.

Have we discussed spanking babies who throw food from the high chair yet? The woman who helped me with nursing had had a patient who was anorexic at the age of one because of Ezzo's highchair spanking. So fun, so godly!

Mama Mia, I think it's an anxious, controlling stage that some people go through. Among all my friends who were so concerned about baby sleeping independently there are maybe one or two who don't have their second or third preschooler spending time in their bed at night. It makes me sad to think of all the pain and stress when all they needed to do was relax.

[August]

.

Parenting sites and books tell you to let a colicky baby cry sometimes and put the baby in a safe place and walk away if you have to! Is that abuse??

Again, you haven't been given or thought about the reason WHY a certain piece of advice is given. Parents are told to take time with a colicky baby so that they don't hurt the baby.

[August]

I also remember very specifically that the book said to move to every 1 1/2 hour feedings during growth spurts.

I'm very happy for those of you that didn't have a baby that cried for no reason. My second was like that. There were many times with my first that I would feed him, change him, check his temp, attempt to feed him again, strip him down to his diaper, bundle him up, and still end up rocking him while he screamed bloody fucking murder in my arms. That child is now 13 and still gets upset when his schedule changes suddenly. It's part of his personality and it always has been. He needs structure. Say whatever you want about Ezzo, that book saved us. If there is a different book out there about scheduling that doesn't have the other stuff, please tell me. I give no fucks whatsoever about who the info came from, I know I'm not the only person whose baby needs structure.

But what of your other children who didn't need a rigid schedule? Surely learning the physiology of feeding, some common cues, tips and tricks for soothing and being supported as you figure them out is the best solution? That way all babies end up having their needs met, from the ones who like to be left alone (yes, they exist!), to the ones who need A to always be followed by B, to the ones who need to be held 24/7.

There are any number of books which help with this sort of thing, but I'd recommend kellymom.com for breastfeeding physiology, happiest baby on the block and Elizabeth Pantley for behaviour.

[formergothardite]

Preparation for Parenting is way worse than Babywise and I think Snarkylark must have forgotten most of it because what she is talking about is nothing like what the program is really like. PFP was the "Christian" version that Ezzo started with that was a whole program with tapes, a book and sometimes classes. I babysat for a family that used it and I remember the creepy way in which the children were afraid to run and greet their father because PFP said that fathers had to greet the mothers first. Since they didn't have television I ended up reading the things in their bookshelves after the kids went to bed and a lot of PFP. Even as a young fundie teen I thought the program sounded disturbing.

Ezzo is a believer in the doctrine of total depravity so he believes babies are born depraved, manipulative and in needing of immediate training and it being made clear that they don't come first. That is why even in his Babywise books he tells parents to have "couch time" where they sit in front of the baby for 15 min and talk all while ignoring the baby.

[DaisyD]

I did watch happiest baby in the hospital with #2. It was enlightening. I just wish that scheduling didn't have the stigma that it does. I really do believe that my son was much better off for it (I've explained that I wasn't a strict Ezzo devotee. I used what worked and chucked the rest). I even tried chucking the schedule when people said I was a bad mother for it, and all hell broke loose in my house. Some babies need it. My son never got into his own rythm. My daughter did after about a week, but he didn't. He needed me to help him with it. I think it's a fine line with any parenting choice for a baby. Before I started scheduling I was having very scary thoughts. As soon as we settled into the schedule those went away, no meds required. Scheduling is not evil, and I wish more people could understand that. Just like anything, you have to use common sense.

[apandaaries]

Babies don't cry for "no reason." They may cry for reasons you don't see or understand, but I can promise you they have a reason for crying. This is coming from someone with a colicky baby who screamed through the first three months of his life and a high needs baby who is now 11 and still quite capable of periodic meltdowns.

The people who propose leaving babies to cry themselves to sleep ... is that what they would want? Would they want someone to look at them while they were crying and say, "Yeah, you're not crying for any reason that I understand. You go in that dark room, lie down and stay there until you cry yourself to sleep. You're disrupting my peace." If adults need comfort, why in the hell would anyone assume a baby doesn't?

Exactly this. You can try your best to figure out what's troubling the baby and still not find the problem. That doesn't mean that the baby is crying for no reason, nor that the baby will improve by being ignored or left alone to cry it out.

One issue that Ezzo doesn't consider is food allergies, which can be a major source of pain for infants. All they can do is cry to try to communicate. There's nothing in there about adjusting diets. There's a lot of new research on the connection between moods and gut bacteria, which could impact a baby.

Overall, who could ignore a crying baby? Do you intentionally not interact with adults? Why not with babies?

[DaisyD]

Actually, there are a LOT of adults I intentionally don't interact with.

We tried cio with the boy and it was awful for a couple of days before we gave up. Because of that I recoiled a bit when my daughter's doctor suggested it at 9 months when she had stopped sleeping through the night. We decided to go for it, and the whole thing was over in 20 minutes on the first night. Every baby is different! What works for one will fail miserably for another. My two are proof. They were opposites from conception. My son kicked so hard, so often that he broke the hydraulic in my office chair. My daughter never kicked. She would push and turn, push and turn.

[formergothardite]

I did watch happiest baby in the hospital with #2. It was enlightening. I just wish that scheduling didn't have the stigma that it does. I really do believe that my son was much better off for it (I've explained that I wasn't a strict Ezzo devotee. I used what worked and chucked the rest). I even tried chucking the schedule when people said I was a bad mother for it, and all hell broke loose in my house. Some babies need it. My son never got into his own rythm. My daughter did after about a week, but he didn't. He needed me to help him with it. I think it's a fine line with any parenting choice for a baby. Before I started scheduling I was having very scary thoughts. As soon as we settled into the schedule those went away, no meds required. Scheduling is not evil, and I wish more people could understand that. Just like anything, you have to use common sense.

I think scheduling has such a negative stigma because of people like Ezzo whose scheduling advice has almost killed babies and then people keep saying it is such a good book.

[roddma]

Babies have no concept of schedules. When one of our cats had kittens for the first time. she fed them like crazy. I thought she over did it. Cats and babies are not the same, I know, but the concept remains -a baby anything isn't on a schedule. They depend on us/ adult animal to feed and take care of them.

From diaperless babies to scheduling, when will people learn there's no parenting shortcut? As others said up thread, parenting is not mean to be a convenience and this guy is no child expert. And what works for one baby isn't going to work for ALL.

[DaisyD]

I think scheduling has such a negative stigma because of people like Ezzo whose scheduling advice has almost killed babies and then people keep saying it is such a good book.

I know that's why, it just sucks because I know how desperate I was. I just wish someone would write a book that included several methods for different types of babies. There is no one size fits all solution.

[formergothardite]

I know that's why, it just sucks because I know how desperate I was. I just wish someone would write a book that included several methods for different types of babies. There is no one size fits all solution.

From my experience as a mother it seems like many people want a one size fit all solution and there just isn't one. Not everything is going to work for every baby. With people like Ezzo he gives this almost magical sounding solution that promises to have your baby sleeping through the night by two months old. And that attracts so many parents, but it doesn't work for many babies. And his advice doesn't just not work for a lot of babies, it is dangerous for a lot of babies.

[DaisyD]

Babies have no concept of schedules. When one of our cats had kittens for the first time. she fed them like crazy. I thought she over did it. Cats and babies are not the same, I know, but the concept remains -a baby anything isn't on a schedule. They depend on us/ adult animal to feed and take care of them.

From diaperless babies to scheduling, when will people learn there's no parenting shortcut? As others said up thread, parenting is not mean to be a convenience and this guy is no child expert. And what works for one baby isn't going to work for ALL.

I guess my response to this is that intention matters a lot. If you're looking for a shortcut because you can't be bothered, well that's one thing. When you are concerned for the health and well being of both baby and mother, that's quite another. For me, once we got into a schedule we could both live with, my mental health improved quite a bit. No judgment on those that needed meds for ppd. I don't think that was my problem. Both my son and I were being terrorized by the lack of stability. Once we achieved that, everything got better for both of us. For five weeks, things were really hairy though.

[apandaaries]

Erika Shupe, queen of schedules, advocates for this or something similar, remember? She and Zsu had that excellent discussion awhile ago: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22899

But Erika's also mentioned her difficulties with milk supply: largefamiliesonpurpose.com/2013/04/feeding-baby-part-1-my-experience-with.html

Anything highly scheduled and regimented with babies always strikes me as ridiculous. That it's endorsed by Erika is another red flag.

[Mama Mia]

" Happiest Baby on the Block" that what the moms I was talking about were given at the hospital -- is that Cry It Out?

They also tend to be on Baby Center type boards, a lot. Which I think exposes them to more regimented views than their crunchy casual, co- sleeping mom's in their hometown!

Also, now that I think of it, they tend to be nurses, teachers, accountants -- jobs where schedule and planning are big deals. So yea, probably the idea of a schedule feels " safe" and reassuring to them.

[Snarkylark]

Snarkylark, you say up thread that you would wake a sleeping baby to establish supply and yet not allow a baby to use you as a sleep prop. Do you not see how ridiculously contradictory this advice is. Whether or not you were ever aware of it, I don't know. It's just such incredible bullshit.

You woke your sleeping babies to get them onto YOUR schedule, not to establish supply.

Sleep prop indeed. That's what breasts are for.

No baby cries for no reason.

Waking a baby is only recommended for establishing supply, supply issues. Mine from newborn would wake every 2-3 hours around the clock. If they slept longer during the day then I would wake them to feed them so they would sleep longer at night. And I don't mean like 5 minutes past a "scheduled" feeding, but if they were going on an hour past, yes. I never had supply issues so I could let mine sleep longer stretches at night without having to wake them up. I'm not sure what you think is contradictory?

[Snarkylark]

Also, CIO is for sleep time, if necessary. Not just neglecting a baby for a random reason and letting him cry. I think some of you are thinking that we just put our baby down and just let him scream. And again, it's not done for newborns but older babies. Some babies don't need to ever cry, they go to bed just fine. Do you suggest that a child never learns to fall asleep on its own? That parents cater to every whim the child has. Again, speaking of older children here. But the framework for healthy sleepers can be started earlier than a year or two old, and I think that's fine. By sleep props I mean rocking baby to sleep, using car rides, whatever to get the baby to sleep and then very gingerly trying to lay the baby down and hope he doesn't wake up. This was not how I wanted my evenings to go on, possibly for years! Babies can develop good sleep habits at an early age. If my baby cried, I absolutely comforted him or fed him or whatever he needed. But when it was time for sleep I wanted them to be able to sleep! I didn't leave my newborns to cry and cry.

[Full enough quiver]

I'm a person who really needs sleep. If I can sleep 10 hours, I'm a happy camper. tried to follow a loose schedule based on my daughter's natural sleep patterns. I noticed that she was more alert in the late morning, but tended to get sleepy in the afternoon. She'd nap from 2-4, and then go to bed around 9-10 or so, and wake up around 3 wanting to nurse, and then be up for the day around 8. We co slept (in a co sleeper) and that helped tremendously. For nap time I made sure we were home around two, and we'd be in the rocker nursing in a dark room at that time. If I had tried to force a morning nap, we both would've been unhappy. We had a bedtime routine, bath, story, nurse, bed. That being said, she had undiagnosed reflux, and the first three months or so were hell for both of us. There were times I let her cry. Never more than 5 minutes or so, but sometimes I just needed to save my sanity. She's none the worse for it as far as I can tell. I just think everything is about moderation and common sense. A loose schedule isn't the worst thing ever, and you can try to gradually get them onto your time frame, but being rigid, starving them, and letting them scream is terrible parenting. They'll live if they cry for a few minutes, but it shouldn't be all the time.

[August]

Also, CIO is for sleep time, if necessary. Not just neglecting a baby for a random reason and letting him cry. I think some of you are thinking that we just put our baby down and just let him scream. And again, it's not done for newborns but older babies. Some babies don't need to ever cry, they go to bed just fine. Do you suggest that a child never learns to fall asleep on its own? That parents cater to every whim the child has. Again, speaking of older children here. But the framework for healthy sleepers can be started earlier than a year or two old, and I think that's fine. By sleep props I mean rocking baby to sleep, using car rides, whatever to get the baby to sleep and then very gingerly trying to lay the baby down and hope he doesn't wake up. This was not how I wanted my evenings to go on, possibly for years! Babies can develop good sleep habits at an early age. If my baby cried, I absolutely comforted him or fed him or whatever he needed. But when it was time for sleep I wanted them to be able to sleep! I didn't leave my newborns to cry and cry.

Again, you need to read Ezzo before you claim he doesn't tell you to just leave them to cry, and that he doesn't start from birth.

But you obviously picked up his main theme, that somehow feeding someone when they're hungry means you'll be handing out cookies to bratty schoolchildren left, right, and center.

The bolded is in direct contradiction to the very next sentence, you're obviously saying things you think sound good, but which don't reflect your actual actions.

No, we're not saying a child never learns to fall asleep on their own, you're saying it. We're saying the opposite.

Deciding that because you don't want to be doing XYZ with a three year old is reason to treat a newborn like a three year old is downright stupid. If you don't want to be changing your teenager's diaper, then make sure you don't let your newborn get used to using one!! All of the transitions in my kids lives have been relatively painless because I waited until they were developmentally ready for them. Although I must admit that I'm scared of starting to date and learning to drive. Maybe I should get them doing it now, since development is irrelevant?

[August]

" Happiest Baby on the Block" that what the moms I was talking about were given at the hospital -- is that Cry It Out?

They also tend to be on Baby Center type boards, a lot. Which I think exposes them to more regimented views than their crunchy casual, co- sleeping mom's in their hometown!

Also, now that I think of it, they tend to be nurses, teachers, accountants -- jobs where schedule and planning are big deals. So yea, probably the idea of a schedule feels " safe" and reassuring to them.

No, happiest baby is settling techniques for newborns. Opposite of CIO. we were shown the DVD at the hospital.

Could they be into Contented Little Baby? That's the English Ezzo. She sued a woman on a parenting board for saying she should be strapped to a missile and shot into space. The babies aren't contented, they're catatonic from dehydrated and hopelessness.

[Snarkylark]

Again, you need to read Ezzo before you claim he doesn't tell you to just leave them to cry, and that he doesn't start from birth.

But you obviously picked up his main theme, that somehow feeding someone when they're hungry means you'll be handing out cookies to bratty schoolchildren left, right, and center.

The bolded is in direct contradiction to the very next sentence, you're obviously saying things you think sound good, but which don't reflect your actual actions.

No, we're not saying a child never learns to fall asleep on their own, you're saying it. We're saying the opposite.

Deciding that because you don't want to be doing XYZ with a three year old is reason to treat a newborn like a three year old is downright stupid. If you don't want to be changing your teenager's diaper, then make sure you don't let your newborn get used to using one!! All of the transitions in my kids lives have been relatively painless because I waited until they were developmentally ready for them. Although I must admit that I'm scared of starting to date and learning to drive. Maybe I should get them doing it now, since development is irrelevant?

How many times can I say "does not apply to newborns" before you get it?

[Mama Mia]

No, happiest baby is settling techniques for newborns. Opposite of CIO. we were shown the DVD at the hospital.

Could they be into Contented Little Baby? That's the English Ezzo. She sued a woman on a parenting board for saying she should be strapped to a missile and shot into space. The babies aren't contented, they're catatonic from dehydrated and hopelessness.

If it's not Happiest Baby, then they are probably just hearing it from other sleep deprived mom's on Baby Center boards. Who are probably doing the usual " well MY baby slept through the night , every night, after only leaving them to cry it out two nights in a row! The first time for 20 minutes, the next night for 5. Ever since then they've been a perfect angel."

Since they come from an area, and from families, where the norm is to co-sleep until toddler/ pre- school age -- I would bet a bit of it is also tending to think some new way is better. And all this scheduling is " new" to them.

[Snarkylark]

Maybe I can put it in terms that you can understand-"if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. If you don't want to put your baby on a schedule, don't put your baby on a schedule." Clear enough? Nobody's talking about starving infants and not holding them or comforting them when they cry. Do I need to post all the times I fed my kids and their weight at each doctor visit so you can be sure I didn't starve them? Would you also like to know their test scores since certainly I've brain damaged them by letting them cry for a minute?

[Snarkylark]

A review from a poster on Amazon about "Babywise" and there a thousands more but I think this sums it up perfectly:

Balanced View

By Jane Love - December 22, 2010

Amazon Verified Purchase

If you are looking for a book filled with the latest scientific research on children and sleep, go and read Sleeping Through the Night by Jodi Mindell, PhD, associate director of the Sleep Disorders Center at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia. That book is based on science and explains why training your child to have good sleep habits (i.e., training your child to fall asleep on his own without your intervention) is important for their future as children and adults. Her book also lays out a method for sleep-training. Basically, once your baby reaches 12 lb., she has you put them to bed awake every night at the same time until they have learned to fall asleep on their own. (Obviously this is not the totality of the system. I'm summing up.) It works great. But it's really, really difficult on mother and child, and only a minority of people are willing to really go through with it because it means a week or two of nightly crying. Ugh.

So then there is On Becoming Baby Wise. The book isn't written by a scientist. And it isn't perfect in that the layout is not as direct as it could be, while meanwhile there are a lot of editorial asides you may or may not agree with. HOWEVER, Ezzo* has basically devised (stumbled upon?) an approach that is very similar to Mindell's except a lot gentler on mother and child. Instead of waiting until the baby is physically capable of sleeping through the night (when he's reached about 12 lb.), he has you start setting the stage for good sleep right away by getting them used to a flexible schedule** of feedings and naps and by putting them down for their naps while they are still awake. Since newborns are so sleepy all the time, and especially after feedings, Ezzo's big contribution was the discovery that if you fed the baby, then interacted with the baby for a while, then put the baby to nap instead of the more natural tendency to nurse the baby to sleep for naps, it becomes actually possible to put a newborn to nap awake. Then, of course, since newborns will fall asleep quickly and easily (i.e. 5-20 minutes of crying max) even if they are put down awake (as opposed to the 3 or 4 month old you are trying to sleep train with Mindell's method who will cry for an hour), they learn really quickly the habit of falling asleep by themselves. By the time they are 12 lb., they are already sleeping through the night without any brutal sleep training. And voila! Ezzo has discovered (stumbled upon?) a better way of doing what the sleep scientists recommend.

We used Mindell's method for our first three children. Then we used the Baby Wise method for our next three children. (Yes, we have six.) All six of them have slept twelve hours every night starting by about 4 months of age. All of them have continued to go to bed early, happily, and in their own beds. They all wake up happily 12 hours later, usually singing. We get told constantly that are kids are so content and well-behaved. Honestly, the only thing we are doing as parents differently than other people is training them to sleep. Both methods work, but Baby Wise is easier, so I continue to give it as a gift to new mothers.

*I don't know anything about Ezzo except that he's controversial as a person. Maybe I wouldn't like him if I met him. I'd like to point out, though, that the how well his method works has nothing to do with how nice of a personality he has. Saying otherwise is a classic ad hominem attack. Like saying you don't believe in Einstein's theory of relativity because Einstein was unfaithful to his wife.

** For those who are against scheduling all together, I get it. I think that since attachment parenting/anti-scheduling is such a class marker (i.e. all upper class/respectable women cary their baby in a Moby wrap and feed on demand) and so strongly pushed by the la leche league-trained lactation consultant at the hospital, it can be hard to go against the grain and adopt a schedule. I would urge people to consider two things:

1) most (all?) NICU's will immediately put 4 lb. babies on a rigid (down to the minute) 3-hour feeding schedule. Ask your lactation consultant/well-meaning friend why it will hurt your 8 lb. newborn to be on a 3-hour feeding schedule but not a 4 lb. preemie.

2) If you take your baby to bed with you there is a good chance he will never leave. I know so many women who are chronically sleep-deprived because they have their five-year-old and their two-year old still in bed with them. At least one man told my husband, "My wife wants another baby, but the other two kids are in our bed half the night. I'm never going to agree to have another one." Yikes.

[Snarkylark]

And I can personally vouch for the NICU bit. I did 80 hours for my clinical transitions course and even the tiniest babies were on a rigid 3 hour feeding schedule. Much more rigid than I was at home with my babies. And when they were done with feeds they were wrapped up and put back into their isolette. They slept until the next feeding.