attachment parenting
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 08-14-2006 - 3:17pm |
A woman I know (I used to work with her dh) practices "attachment parenting". Here is a definition (for those who don't know what it is):
"Attachment Parenting includes respecting your child's needs, feeding on demand, and answering your baby's cries. Other parts of Attachment Parenting include co-sleeping, nursing on demand, sling or other baby carrier wearing, and cloth diapering. Not all Attachment Parents practice all of the above, but never the less love the idea of Attachment Parenting and comforting their children.
Attachment parenting uses mild discipline methods and avoids all physical or emotional punishment, such as inflicting shame on a child for inappropriate behavior. Children are encouraged and allowed to sleep with their parents, and you treat your bed as the family bed. Meeting your child's needs according to the child's time frame during the early years of development is an essential part of attachment parenting. Children will be allowed to grow and learn at their own pace and not according to standard time frames."
What do you all think of attachment parenting?
I don't see attachment parenting as something a WOH parent could do, or could they? What do u think?
I am also curious to see if SAHPs vs/ WOHPs will have different opionions on this topic.
If anyone here practices attachment parenting - was your decision to do so closely linked with your decision to be a SAHP?
josee

Pages
My problem was that there was no good way, AP or not, to fit my children into my pre-baby life.
Until I saw my SIL become a mother, and until I got to know some women through cyber space (Donna and Karen leap to mind), I didn't understand the vast differences in how baby does or does not fit in to one's life. I understand much better now.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"Go grab your favorite box / can / bottle of formula and *read* the ingredients."
Haven't had formula in my house for over 8 years now. No can do.
"And these were American products if you *read* the article."
I know that they were American products. Just not an American study.
"I'm sure there are more recent studies. Try google and I'm sure you'll find them."
So, you've proved nothing.
Wow thanks for the bm class. Does that make my statement any less true? I have to ask, Why all the eye roll icons? Are you really that annoyed?
Editted to add that you might not want to use the sub saharan Africa women and children as an example. They aren't a shining example of health.
Edited 8/25/2006 12:31 pm ET by mbanc17
"Why wuld a Candandian study -- or a study published in a Canadian Journal -- be inherently flawed?"
You're putting words in my mouth. Never said anything about it being flawed. I'd rather (my preference only) read an American study.
Hey I just found this one. But you know me, I am not buying the whole IQ points are lower. I don't think you can compare children. No one would ever know if a child that had breastmilk instead of formula would have had better vision or higher IQ. But I thought you might like this.
http://www.drgreene.com/21_797.html
Breast milk is the best and safest form of nutrition for infants. Infants and breast milk are designed for each other. Infant formulas have been developed to substitute for breast milk when nursing is impractical, or in the unusual instances when it is physically impossible or contraindicated. The goal for infant formulas is to match as closely as possible the composition of human breast milk.
Over the past few years, two key ingredients have been identified in breast milk, which, until 2002, were not present in the infant formulas available in the United States. DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid) are the most prevalent long chain fatty acids found in human breast milk. (These naturally occurring fatty acids are also found in fish oil.)
DHA and ARA are the most prevalent structural fats in the brain. Healthy brains are about 60% structural fat (not like the flabby fat found elsewhere in the body). Of this about 25% is DHA and 15% is ARA. DHA is also a major structural component of the retina of the eye. It makes up about 60% of the outer segments of the rods in the retina. Autopsies performed on babies who have died from other causes have shown that formula-fed babies have significantly less DHA in their brains than breast-fed babies.
A large number of studies have suggested that low DHA and ARA levels might be associated with problems with intelligence, vision, and behavior. Children fed standard formulas may have IQ's 5-9 points lower than breast-fed babies, even after correcting for other factors. Vision is measurably poorer by 4 months of age (although this seems to equalize with age), and behavioral problems, such as attention deficit disorder, are more common. These discrepancies have not been found when infants are fed formulas supplemented with DHA and ARA.
Research funded by the National Institutes of Child Health and Development (NICHD) found that infants fed formula with DHA and ARA at the levels recommended by the World Health Organization scored approximately seven points higher on a 100-point scale on a test of mental development at 18-months compared to infants fed the control formula without added DHA and ARA. The study also found that infants fed formula with DHA and ARA at these levels had improved visual acuity equal to about one line on a vision chart during the first year.
Some studies of DHA and ARA have not detected these striking differences. The studies don’t contradict each other – they are just different. They use different amounts of DHA and ARA, different sources, and different methods to measure benefit.
Because parents are becoming more aware of DHA and ARA, more products containing them are coming to market. Remember: just because a product has DHA and ARA on the label, it does not mean that the nutrients are present at the levels that have been clinically demonstrated to make a difference (the levels recommended by the World Health Organization and found in breast milk around the world).
A study published in the March 2002 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that among babies who nurse for 6 weeks and then wean to formula, DHA and ARA in the formula at the right levels continues to make a difference. These babies were followed for a year, and throughout the study those babies who had the enhanced formula had better vision than those who had traditional formula.
During the months when infants are exclusively breast fed or formula fed (before supplemental feedings are introduced), they must get their nutrients from what they drink. As the variety of foods they eat increases, infants are able to obtain more of the nutrients they need from these foods.
Even then, breast milk is the foundation of optimal nutrition. I agree with the World Health Organization in urging mothers to breast feed exclusively for six months, and to continue to breast feed "for up to two years of age or beyond". When babies do receive formula, I am thrilled that formula containing DHA and ARA is available.
I am very grateful for modern infant formulas. They provide the best alternative to breast milk ever available in history. More than that, though, this recent formula innovation underscores the value of breast milk itself, including benefits we have yet to discover.
ANOTHER ONE!!!
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/596_baby.html
Edited 8/25/2006 12:46 pm ET by mbanc17
Pages