"I am getting the feeling that you don't really understand what cue-feeding is"
<<<I have never dare claim I know much of what it is.>>>
Even though it has been explained here several times? It's not complicated... all you do is feed the baby whenever he shows hunger cues. (restless, mouthing, rooting, sucking fists, etc.)
"If you have a baby who cues to eat at very random times... at 8:00... then an hour later, then 3 hours later, then 45 minutes later, then another hour, then 4 hours, then every 30 minutes until bedtime... what would you do to put them on a schedule?"
<<<This sound like either the baby is a newborn or a baby who has not been trained. So it has to be started from scratched.....treating the baby like a new born. For a start, I would feed on demand because he is probably really hungry each time he cues, since his body has not be adjusted to the routine. In the process of doing so, there will be chances when the baby actually sleeps longer once in awhile. These are the natural (timing) I will slowly use to build the schedule upon. Slowly spacing out the interval. This may take time.>>>
This is not a newborn, it is a totally normal 4, 5, or 6 month old baby. I would like to know how you would go about "spacing out the interval" to get this kind of a baby on a schedule. What exactly would that look like? I guess I'm not seeing how you could space out the interval without holding off a hungry baby in some way?
<<<I will choose to be flexible with the schedule timings, but first for each meal, I will encourage him to eat more if he can, at the same time, the timing wil have to be re-adjusted according to his needs.>>>
How exactly would you "encourage" a baby to eat more at a feeding? How much "more"? One ounce? Two ounces? What if the baby is breastfed, how would you get him to eat more? Wouldn't this be ignoring a baby's hunger cues? (in this case, the cue that he is full?)
<<<No. It is not more of a realationship with my mum. It is my relationship with my son, my daughter, my wife, my mum, my dad and my in-laws. Although I start to be a father, I will never cease being a son. Same goes for my wife and hers. It is the model for my son and daughter that even tho' I have become a father, I am to be very careful with the relationship with my parents and inlaws too. I know my mum respects me and I don't need to ask. The only thing is that she had been subject to the "terror reign" of my grandpa when she had me and my siblings. Till now, she finds it hard to do things in ways we expect her to, and often instinctively reacts to situations as if she is still being haunted my my grandpa.>>>
You said that it was necessary to train your baby because you didn't want them to be traumatized later on if someone else did not respond to their cries right away... I'm assuming this meant your mum, because she does not always parent the way you do. I'm just curious why you think that you should treat a baby with a lower level of care simply because someone else might do this? I would think that you should give your baby as much attention/comfort as possible whenever possible to make up for the times when he/she does not get it from an alternate caregiver? Why can't you explain to your mom how you feel about parenting and why you would like her to respond to your child a certain way whenever possible? I do understand about doing things because of the way you were raised or being what you have been used to, but that does not mean that people cannot change. I am 41 years old, I was raised a certain way by my parents, and I parented a certain way for 10 years before I CHOSE to change the way I did things. I'm not perfect, but I have come a long way and the way I treat my children now is completely different from how I treated my oldest 20 years ago. I don't see any reason why your mum cannot decide to do things differently, regardless of her past. It may not be easy, but it's not impossible. (my own mother-in-law is 80, and she has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, she is so much more gentle and patient with my kids now. Even older people can change if they really want to.)
"SOME babies will not have any predictable pattern. If mom is breastfeeding, this is usually no big deal, since there is no preparation needed... lift shirt, attach baby. :-) For those who have to use bottles, this can be a bit more challenging, but it's just how some babies are. To get a baby like this on a schedule, you would definitely have to NOT feed a hungry baby."
<<<NOT feed a hungry baby? Who says anything about that? We have the routine and schedule established without letting our child go hungry. We recognise when our baby is hungry. Similarly to what you do, we take note of the timings the baby gets hungry. We then make little adjustments, to stretch the timing little by little whenever the baby wakes up later then the scheduled timing.>>>
How exactly would you get a baby with a random feeding pattern into a schedule without making them wait at least a short period of time? What does this "stretching the timing little by little" look like? How do you make these "little adjustments" to a baby who just doesn't get hungry on a predictable timeframe?
<<<Anyway it is a matter of which word (Spank, swat, hit, smack) means what to which parent. Important thing is tt the parent must know what he/she is doing. I agree with you. It can get out of control easily. So not everyone is able to conduct it objectively, as in, not impulsively, or spontaneously. Danger is always there.>>>
So why use a method that dangerous in the first place... especially when there are many other methods available that do not carry the same risks? Why should any parent ever "objectively" hit their child? How does their self control and objectiveness make it GOOD for the child?
"The bottom line is this, Ezzo tells parents to do things that go against the way God set things up to work, and because of this, children get hurt."
<<<I can agree with you on that his method could be misunderstood and can lead to children getting hurt, but I don't believe that he purposely go against God and purposely lead parents to hurt children (just clarifying - even tho' you might not have meant that)>>>
The fact that it can be so easily misunderstood is part of what makes it so dangerous. He is INTENTIONALLY ambiguous about things, and repeatedly makes misleading or confusing statements that contradict each other and lead to this kind of "misunderstanding". Feed a hungry baby even if it's not the scheduled time... but be aware that if you do, you will throw him into metabolic chaos. Feed a hungry baby... but try to get him back into the schedule as soon as possible. Feed him if he's hungry, but check everything else FIRST, to make sure he's REALLY hungry. Feed a hungry baby, but not until he starts crying, because if he's not crying, he can't really be hungry. (which is much too late, by the time the baby is crying he has already been hungry for awhile, and it can result in a baby who refuses to nurse... which tells the parent that they AREN'T hungry, when they really ARE... leading to more confusion.) He really wants parents to stick to his schedule, but he doesn't want to come across as "hyper-scheduling", so he tries to say BOTH things, so if someone accuses him of being too strict, he can point to where he said "feed a hungry baby" and he's covered... but if someone says that the schedule isn't working, he can point to where he said that if you do not follow it correctly, you won't get the desired results. Win/win for him.
"The feeding schedule is biologically WRONG and leads to dehydration and failure to thrive in many infants."
<<<I think this is what I meant when I said his method and book can be easily misunderstood. Similarly, I know many Ezzo Parents who have done the same for every of their child and experience good nutrients on the children. So it is not WRONG, but rather, the parent do not excercise discernment on whether the child is hungry or not.
So for example if a particular child does not sleep through the night, and still wakes up in the middle of the night for feeding, even when at 2months old (the age that Ezzo says is possible for sleep through), the parents should still feed the child and not force the child to miss the feeding.>>>
No, just because SOME babies manage to get along IN SPITE OF Ezzo's schedule is not proof that it is a good or safe method. Humans have gotten along on less than adequate nutrition since the beginning of time. All that proves is that humans are very resilient and adaptable and can get along on a lot less than they actually need. Ezzo's schedule only allows for the MINIMUM recommended number of feeds. If parents do manage to get their baby to fit into the schedule, they are only allowing them to get the bare minimum amount of nutrition they need to stay adequately healthy without losing too much weight or getting sick...which is why some babies do lose weight or become dehydrated on the program. Even when it "works", it is not allowing for OPTIMAL nutrition, only ADEQUATE nutrition. This is why the whole feeding program is WRONG... W R O N G... not correct, inappropriate, not in conformity with fact or truth, inaccurate. It goes against the way the body is designed to function, it does not allow for ALL babies to get the appropriate amount of nutrition for their individual needs. It has absolutely nothing to do with having "discernment"... you don't need to use "discernment" unless you are doing this artificial program. Otherwise you just feed a baby whenever they cue, period. No "discernment" necessary.
"Playpen time" is a totally unnecessary idea that does NOTHING to help children learn to focus better"
<<<Well it has worked out for our child. Now, when you give him a toy, he can stay focus on it, exploring every detail of it for a long time. Usually, until he is done exploring with that one toy, then only he will start getting interesting in the others around him.
I think this is not something to be expected from every child, although some may be naturally like that.>>>
This is what I mean by "unnecessary"... as in, you don't NEED to do it, it serves no real purpose, it does not actually DO anything. Being in a playpen with a limited number of toys or giving a child only one specific toy to play with for a certain amount of time does NOTHING to help them develop concentration or increase their attention span. Your child would have done the same thing whether you put him in the playpen or not. They don't even make real "playpens" here anymore, there are only small "pack n'plays" that are good for naps or putting a baby for very short periods of time, but really aren't big enough for a baby to really play in. When my kids were growing up, we had PLAYPENS... a good 4 x 4 foot area where a baby could play with toys while their parent worked or did other things. THESE were what Ezzo was talking about when he wrote his books, because that's what was available at that time. Funny how the equipment has changed, but his advice hasn't. Now babies would have to sit in less than half the space and be expected to entertain themselves with the one or two toys their parent gives them. It is a ridiculous idea with absolutely no basis other than Ezzo's uneducated opinion.
<<<I think it is only harmful when parents become control "freaks" that they forget to widen the "funnel", to let the child have more freedom as he/she matures more. Then, yes, I agree the child is being deprived.>>>
This IS being "controlling", just because there are ways to be even MORE controlling does not mean that the Funnel is not a way to control your child's behavior. (and NOT using the "funnel" does not mean that a parent lets their child run wild, either.) This is the same argument Ezzo uses to justify his methods... he compares himself to others using terms like "hyper-controlling" or "hyper-scheduling", as if the fact that there is someone more extreme than himself makes his methods "middle of the road".
<<<I don't like the idea of cry it out (not to mention 45 mins). It is heart wrenching for me to imagine my beby crying that long. I don't know if it will cause long term brain damage. I am pretty sure anyone, including an adult, crying at the top of their lungs no-stop for 45 mins can seriously injure the throat.
The only thing is, if the baby had to wait a little, and therfore end up crying, while the parent notice the hunger, and had to heat up the milk or meal, it should not be harmful and be considered cruelty.>>>
Yes, it does cause lesions in the brain due to an overload of stress hormones. In small babies, crying like that also causes increased heartrate, blood pressure, respiration, and all the same symptoms of an adult having a stroke. In very young babies, it can interfere with the normal blood circulation. Crying for long periods of time is not healthy for babies in any way.
I think you know that no one here has said that letting a baby cry for a couple minutes while preparing a bottle is "cruelty". Then again, I don't know of any parent that would intentionally ignore even these cries and not at least try to comfort their baby with their voice while they got the bottle ready, either. That is not the same thing as putting a baby in a crib and intentionally ignoring their cries the way Ezzo teaches.
<<<I will choose to believe that I am blessed by the grace of God, and not being fortunate (associated with luck), and I reject in the name of Jesus your statement of "obvious damage", implying that unseen damage is done already.>>>
Please don't get hung up on definitions...
Fortunate: bringing some good thing not forseen as certain; receiving some unexpected good.
You can see it as being "blessed"... but however you want to phrase it, you did not have the negative outcomes that was a possibility with the program you are following.
As for rejecting the idea of "unseen damage"... if you do something that can cause damage, you cannot just "reject" the idea of unseen damage happening and expect that to do anything. I understand the idea of praying over your children for God to protect them or heal them, especially if you found out that something you did has the potential to cause damage, but simply "rejecting" it doesn't really do anything. That's just not a biblical concept. If you used to be a smoker, you can't just "reject" the possibility of getting lung cancer from it, even if you have already quit. The "unseen damage" has already occurred, now all you can do is pray for healing and protection. I have had to deal with this in my own life, I have made a lot of parenting choices that I found out later were not good. I can't just "reject" the idea of there being "unseen damage" from what I have already done, but I can pray for God to make up for it and heal any damage I may have unintentionally caused. This is why it is so important to thoroughly research any parenting method you are planning to use, because you can be sincere and still do unintended damage. Damage doesn't just go away because you didn't mean for it to happen. I really do hope that your children are not harmed in any way by the methods you have used, and since you seem to be being very "flexible" with the materials (not really following them very closely) that's a very good possibility. I just don't think it's wise to put God to the test by using something you have already been told is unbiblical and potentially harmful with the idea that if you just reject the idea of something bad happening from it, that it won't happen.
<<<Watered down or not, up to you to see it. I only thank God to be my main source of wisdom and my guide.>>>
Then why choose to follow a clearly flawed program that you have to let God "guide" you through? I'm just not seeing how choosing something you know to be contaminated and trying to pick the bad parts out of it is really using Godly discretion? Wouldn't it be far wiser just to avoid something you know to be contaminated in the first place?
<<<I know in the past, his books were different, and in the past there were many bad testimonies from parents who suffered from it. But equally true is that now, the books have been revised, and most probably that GFI teachers have been trained to teach and explain and give support differently from the past. Equally true is that there are numerous parents and children benefitting from it. So if just because something has flopped badly, in the past, that even now, when improved and is useful, people still continue to slam it, is just not being fair>>>
So what has changed so drastically that the man who wrote all those harmful things 15 years ago is now suddenly qualified to teach parents how to raise their children? Did he take medical courses since then? Has he taken child psychology classes? What has changed that makes Mr. Ezzo someone worthy of being in a position of authority? According to the Bible, Mr. Ezzo is disqualified to be in a position of authority as a teacher. According to medical authorities, his materials are dangerous and potentially harmful. What makes you believe that the SLIGHT changes to his materials are sufficient that his methods have gone from HARMFUL to BENEFICIAL? What has more likely happened is that they went from really dangerous to only mildly dangerous... how does this translate into "good for my baby"? So not as many babies are being hospitalized due to his "improved" schedule... all this says is that the damage is not severe enough to cause hospitalization. That does not mean that it is improved enough to meet the nutritional needs of all babies. Many babies will still not get enough to eat... they just won't get dehydrated or fall off the growth charts like they did in the past. They will only be getting the minimum number of feeds, but it will keep them growing enough that doctors will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just on the small side of normal.
Ezzo's materials have been "improved"...but only enough to make them "not quite as bad" for babies as they used to be. The schedule will never be GOOD for babies, because it is inherently flawed. A man-made schedule will never be able to meet the individual needs of ALL babies, and you can't know in advance which babies will be alright and which will only get just enough nutrition not to be sick or lose weight. This is why people like me will continue to "slam" these materials (the word you are looking for is "debate"). Because no matter how you look at it it, Ezzo's materials don't line up with the way God designed babies. The farther you get from following his materials, (the more "flexible" you are with them) the better they work. This should tell you something.
Stephanie
