Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have two very different babies in terms of personality, but they are both good sleepers. Like others on this thread we have a daytime routine which includes an afternoon nap of around 2 hours from 1 - 3pm. Both of my children have this nap, at 3 and 20 months respectively.


Our bedtime routine is very strong, and also along similar lines to others we have a wind-down from dinnertime onwards. The kids go to bed at 7pm, after a bath, story and milk (for the younger one). Both have always been put down awake in their cots from an early age and are great at self settling.


Our routine has come into it's own in the last few days, as we arrived in NZ on Saturday. Despite day suddenly being night they have happily gone to bed at their normal time and were basically over their jetlag after a couple of nights. We're finding they are going into a very deep sleep in the afternoon, which is to be expected as their bodies think it's night, but are being strict about the length of this nap and it's working well.


I am a strong believer in the sleep breeds sleep theory, and have always found that if my kids don't sleep well in the day their nighttime sleep is disrupted. No idea why this works, but it really does seem to be true in many cases.


Hope you're all well... am thinking about you all as I lie in the sunshine ;-)

I read a laegw study about features of early parenthood and later sleep patterns. The main correlation was with fsmilies where babies were not picked up every time they stirred but were left to cry a little to see if they would resettle ...and were usually sleeping in their own room from earlier than is recommended.


The report stated that it wasn't possible to say what was cause and effect ... placid temperament/easy sleeper and slightly arms length parenting, or vice versa

What does that mean though, "not picked up ....... left to cry a little"? Has anyone actually researched how much time it takes to permanently alter a child's sleep patterns? Some mothers can bolt awake in an instant, others take a bit to orient themselves. In my case I recall my son screaming his little heart out and pulling my hair while waiting for food in the night...... but I couldn't have done it any faster. Did THAT negatively affect him as well? And I'm a bit wary of "studies" that make these links when there are so many variables that can't be controlled for.


I did one of my university degrees in Developmental Psychology, and while I'm certainly no expert and it hasn't exactly given me much of a parenting advantage (darn!), I do know that the research is endless but CONCLUSIVE research is hard to pin down. For every study that claims "x" there is another that claims "y". So, while it is nice to pad our personal instincts and philosophies with these studies, remember that some new mother out there is reading this information as absolute truth and punishing herself for not getting it right. For the first six months of my son's life I was an emotional mess........ nothing went as planned, I was probably suffering from PND, and somehow all the attachment parenting people came out of the woodwork to remind me of the consequences of the "decisions" that I honestly didn't have much control over. Unfortunately this resulted in months of incredible self-loathing, and it took me a long time to get the clarity to look at it all and realize that it would take a lot more than bottle feeding or not co-sleeping to damage my son. And I will always resent those generalizations....... so dangerous.


Since it is obviously not possible to keep large labs of babies for research, a lot of it is anecdotal based on information from the mother, who of course giving the best information she can but not entirely good science. The other measure is observation, which is tricky as well since it is impossible to adjust for mood, hunger, a bad night, and all those other things that make a baby different from day to day. It is impossible to control for the million variables from baby to baby.


Anyway not sure my point here but I think what I'm trying to say is that I obviously believe in the value of research and I'm the first person to read and think about new research, it MUST be taken with a pinch of salt.

helena handbasket Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What does that mean though, "not picked up .......

> left to cry a little"? Has anyone actually

> researched how much time it takes to permanently

> alter a child's sleep patterns? Some mothers can

> bolt awake in an instant, others take a bit to

> orient themselves. In my case I recall my son

> screaming his little heart out and pulling my hair

> while waiting for food in the night...... but I

> couldn't have done it any faster. Did THAT

> negatively affect him as well? And I'm a bit wary

> of "studies" that make these links when there are

> so many variables that can't be controlled for.

>

> I did one of my university degrees in

> Developmental Psychology, and while I'm certainly

> no expert and it hasn't exactly given me much of a

> parenting advantage (darn!), I do know that the

> research is endless but CONCLUSIVE research is

> hard to pin down. For every study that claims "x"

> there is another that claims "y". So, while it is

> nice to pad our personal instincts and

> philosophies with these studies, remember that

> some new mother out there is reading this

> information as absolute truth and punishing

> herself for not getting it right. For the first

> six months of my son's life I was an emotional

> mess........ nothing went as planned, I was

> probably suffering from PND, and somehow all the

> attachment parenting people came out of the

> woodwork to remind me of the consequences of the

> "decisions" that I honestly didn't have much

> control over. Unfortunately this resulted in

> months of incredible self-loathing, and it took me

> a long time to get the clarity to look at it all

> and realize that it would take a lot more than

> bottle feeding or not co-sleeping to damage my

> son. And I will always resent those

> generalizations....... so dangerous.

>

> Since it is obviously not possible to keep large

> labs of babies for research, a lot of it is

> anecdotal based on information from the mother,

> who of course giving the best information she can

> but not entirely good science. The other measure

> is observation, which is tricky as well since it

> is impossible to adjust for mood, hunger, a bad

> night, and all those other things that make a baby

> different from day to day. It is impossible to

> control for the million variables from baby to

> baby.

>

> Anyway not sure my point here but I think what I'm

> trying to say is that I obviously believe in the

> value of research and I'm the first person to read

> and think about new research, it MUST be taken

> with a pinch of salt.


I am not sure I kept the link (on an old PC) but it was a large study and very interesting, they tried things like having bf bbaies sleep beside a tshirt that smelled of the mum... it was fairly convincing, but not really the road I'd go down, so it must have been quite good evidence for it to stick in my mind despite me not really agreeing, if you get what I mean.. I will see if I can find it

Same as many posts above... luck plays a big role (we were very unlucky at first and very lucky now so there's hope!). We have a strong bedtime routine (long bath, sleepsuit on, milk, 10-20 minutes of play (now that she's a toddler), bed) and we disassociated milk and sleep as early as we felt comfortable doing (at about 7 months, she's now 19 months). We did a bit of crying it out at 6 months (for 4 days, with success within 12, then 10, then 5 minutes and then complete success - it was very stressful but 12 minutes were doable for us). Am not sure if the crying has anything to do with her being such a great sleeper now though, it's such a long time ago and I never let her cry anymore since there's always something up when she does cry now. At that time it seemed necessary as we were exhausted and our daughter was cranky during waking hours due to lack of sleep - she was a terrible sleeper from 3 to 6 months of age. I'm not saying the gentler methods don't work, just that we weren't able to apply them successfully in over 3 months of trying.


Anyway, I think the main ingredients for us are a strong bedtime routine, no feeding to sleep (especially nighttime breastfeeding after a certain age) and a lot of luck. When they're toddlers the bedtime routine doesn't even have to mean that everything needs to be dark and quiet after bath time, all you need is for it to be roughly the same every day - our daughter goes back to her toy box after bath time and runs around a bit more in our busy living room... but after about 15 minutes she'll pick up her monkey and say "bed" and we'll take her to bed without the slightest fuss.

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.

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.

Our little one has always slept well - from about 2 months old has been sleeping through (at first with a dream feed at 11pm) which we dropped at about 5 months.


The single most important thing I'd say is always put them to sleep while they are awake, so they learn how to fall asleep. So snoozy yes ,after a nice bath and bottle, book etc. But awake. Don't feed them to sleep otherwise they wake up in the night and think they need to feed again to fall asleep.


It worked really well for us

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...