lard

Smiler Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread makes me green with envy and want to > weep! Parenting must be such a different > experience without sleep deprivation. > > The question of whether sleeping well (or not) is > a matter of luck / the child's personality or what > the parents do is something that I have thought > about a lot in 22 months of sleepless angst! (All > OK now though, touch wood, lovely peaceful > nights). > > Would love to believe that it is all just down to > luck, but do suspect that there are helpful / > unhelpful things that parents do. But could only > do my best, try those things that I was > comfortable with and not those that didn't seem > right for us. If we ever have another bad sleeper > there are things I would do differently and would > also try not to beat myself up as much. Think that about sums it all up, especially the last paragraph.

Vickster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My nearly two year old sleeps like a dream, and > has done from about 2 months old. Looking back and > trying to pinpoint what this is down to is > difficult, but I think it must be down to the fact > that we are really strict on the nightime routine. > > > Wherever we are, home, holiday, friends/families' > house, we stick to the same routine around the > same time. Winding down from about 6 with slghtly > less entergetic playing, bath at around 6.30, > followed by story and milk and cuddles and singing > (lullabies rather than interactive stuff), then > bed in own cot in a gro-bag (really useful when > outside of familiar environment). My son still has > a dummy but it is not used outside the cot, and > only for dropping off to sleep, it is then > removed. > > I also think a good sleep in the daytime helps > with night sleeping, certainly at toddler age. I > know the compulsion if your child wakes in the > night is to cut down on the daytime sleep, but I > understand that at this age children still need 1 > 1/2 -2 hours sleep during the day. If they wake in > the night, it is unlikely to be linked to the > daytime sleep and cutting down on this will only > cause bedtime issues because they are over tired. > > > Sticking to the bedtime routine might not suit > everyone, as it does mean you have to be party > poopers at the odd family event where children are > still expected to be participating quite late into > the night, and cuts down your eating out options > when on holiday (!), but I think it is a small > price to pay. > > As always, everyone's experiences are difficult, > but this has worked for us. I second this, especially the sleep in the lunchtime. Less than 1 1/2 hours at lunch does not mean more sleep at night. In fact the opposite.

Snowboarder...my well intended advice: :) 3 naps seems a lot. I guess it is just a vicious circle as he hasn't slept great in the night, so then is tired in the day. Just prod him on his 3rd nap to keep him awake :-) I would even work on limiting the 2nd nap (ie not the big lunchtime sleep) to 15mins max. ie start at 30 mins then work backwards. The idea is to get him used to sleeping for longer periods, by limiting the other periods of napping. It sounds as if everytime he wakes up, he wakes up, rather than dropping off again by himself. In the day and then also at night. Same with the food, limit snacks etc in the afternoon so that he is hungry in the evening, so that he gets used to having a bellyful. If he already eats well in the evening , then my only other advice is just leaving him for longer, starting off on the lunchtime nap. Babies can learn to be content in their cot. In my opinion, all babies can be taught behaviour by slightly amending routine each day. Even strong willed ones. They are no different to any other intelligent animal. It isn't cruel by manipulating their behaviour over time to suit your life. In the way you can't teach a dog to walk on lead in a day, nor can going from napping to sleeping be done in a day. Over time though it can change.

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow, I had to laugh while I read that Fuschia > because it sounds lovely, and maybe a more laid > back baby would go for that, but my son was way > beyond "night night now roll over"! Baby SB does > not sound like that baby either. > > I think that unless you have really lived the full > impact of these determined little chaps it is > possibly hard to imagine how resistant they are to > such simple solutions? I too started out with the > Pantley book, and it took me months to realize > that it wasn't my crap mothering that was the > problem but well intended advice meant for > children that were very unlike my son. Strong > willed children are no match for conventional > parenting wisdom...... they eat it up and spit it > out. Once I really understood my son and his > personality I was able to ignore advice (and > judgement for that matter) and start looking at > parenting guides written specifically for "strong > willed" or "spirited" children. I recently > spotted a great book in the library by The Dr. > Sears family........ I'm generally not a fan but > they have a book that I think might be called > Raising Your High Needs Baby, which is just > another name for demanding. They actually really > seem to understand these little guys and I thought > the advice was reasonable. And since they are the > royalty of attachment parenting it might be up > your alley snowboarder. I would seriously give it > a go, I really found myself wishing I had spotted > it when my son was a baby. I think you will be > relieved to see someone "get" your baby, I sure > was. > > My son is still incredibly strong willed, always > will be, and there are days where it's exhausting > and you just wish they could be a little bit > easier like everyone else's kid. BUT, > historically spirited babies have turned into > presidents and masters of industry. Their > determination is their gift. They are wonderful > children....... if you can survive them! Nobody > can make me laugh the way my "larger than life" > three year old can. So what did these parenting guides for strong willed babies say to do to help them sleep through the night?

How much sleep does he get in the day? How much does he eat before he goes to bed? Being awake constantly when not ill is either too much sleep in the day, too little/wrong type of food to get through the night, or a routine of waking up and being unable to get back to sleep by themselves. At 11 months, a maximum of 2hours sleep in the day (preferably at the same time every day), a carbier (eg. bottle and porridge) evening meal, and leaving them for longer when they wake up before going to them to give them chance to drop off. Over time this will improve things. All this cohabiting breastfeeding 5 times a night etc is fine if you can live with it, but my opinion is that we don't live the same type of life like we used to. Work/other things now get in the way. Your sleep is important, so some things have got to change to accommodate your needs too. What is right for one person isn't right for another. Differing opinions as ever in the space of 10 posts, take your pick on what you think is right. Tea/sympathy etc too. :)

Have I missed anything?

They film it all day, it's just the programme that's 60 mins The end result always looks like the interior of DFS

I find it amusing those that laugh about people banging on about their iphone etc seem to be the same people that then talk about how rubbish their own phone is. Both groups using their phone as a badge of honour, as if the phone says something about them.

Ain't no pleasin you is a fantastic song. Some serious strings on it.

The people at the front of the post office queue starting queuing in 1994 though, so who knows who or what they represent. The only common denominator in that queue is patience.

But until all the ones that are currently in the world run out, you can use them. They exist anyway. Double them up or something, then they will last for quite a while. Then use them to throw your rubbish away, instead of buying another bin liner. Don't just add another cloth bag to a world already full of bags. Think of the pesticides, water irrigation, manpower, weaving, bleaching, transport fuel etc that goes into making the cloth for that new cloth bag. You can re-use any plastic bag that you find/already have. We are not starting from scratch here. It is greener to re-use than to create. There is a similar argument for cars, if you want to be "green" don't buy a new car. Use an existing car. It's not as if there aren't cars in the world already. For anything. Don't buy new, re-use what there already is. Make the bags out of old t-shirts or something. I don't care if people want to use cloth bags, plastic bags whatever. It's ultimately your choice. We are all consumers and it is personal choice how much you choose to consume. We all consume in different ways. I just get irritated by hypocrisy, lack of thought, preaching and/or posturing.

Think you need to look into how much water it takes to get cotton, then you can make a full decision. Similarly, if there was the same number of cotton bags by the river it would be just as bad. It's the "throwing them away" mentality that is the problem, not necessarily the material. I'm not making light of the matter. I still stand by my main points, that in general you should be saying "re-use" not "don't use", and that often (in the case of Prius cars etc) there is a lot of window-dressing going on. More effort should be made on promoting the concept of not having kids and not flying, as these make a massive difference in comparison to plastic bags. Surely you can see the madness of creating additional cloth bags, when there are literally gazillions of plastic bags already in existence??

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lard > > Southend or Brighton beach. Take your pick. Bot > about an hour away - Lots of sand there... now go > make some glass yeah? > > I might be with you on the more than one child tax > tho' My point is that there is nothing in glass that is harmful to the environment, it is merely energy used in making glass that is the problem. Energy in collecting and reforming glass isn't much different than energy to form it in the first instance. Brighton is pebbles anyway :-)

Ted Max Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All of which should be recycled instead of put in > the bin! > > Sorry... couldn't resist. > > Who could, Jeremy, with a nice big fat worm like > that wriggling on the hook? > > Sorry, Monica. Plastic bags... Well let's not get started on the recycling fallacy. Glass, paper, aluminium really aren't causing that much harm to the environment. Glass is just sand, the paper industry plants more trees than it uses. etc. Landfill really isn't a problem (what comes out the earth is just going back into it albeit in different form). The energy involved in collecting, sorting, melting down, reutilising these materials I would presume far outweighs the energy used in just using fresh material. All this wasted time could be put to better use! It's another one of these things that makes people feel better. Window-dressing at it's finest. Massive tax on more than one child would have a much better effect, if we really wanted to change how much we consume.

monica Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lard, I see your point, however if you look at how > much oil and energy used in the plastics industry > then in contrast using a cloth bag in comparison > costs nothing. I returned from my hols this > morning and I heard Plastic bag free day went > really well, hopefully the message will get across > that a drop in the ocean (not using plastic bags) > will cause a ripple effect, locally, nationally, > globally. Poly bags is a tiny part of the plastics industry. Cloth bags are a tiny part of the cloth industry. Both use energy. The cotton doesn't magically get picked, weaved, distributed to you, the bag fabricated etc. I would hazard a guess that a poly bag actually uses less energy in production, as it is quicker to make and lighter to transport. Both can be re-used, both get put in landfill at the end of their life. You should be saying "re-use" not "don't use". It's as misguided as people saying buy a new Prius or G-Whizz car. The energy to produce these new cars far outweighs any fuel savings over using an existing old Ford Fiesta. Similarly, not having kids is the most green thing you can do, as over the course of a life we consume an incredible amount, but I don't see anyone on Lordship Lane promoting "Kid Free Day"! Still, if it makes you happy, enjoy!