attachment parenting

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2004
attachment parenting
1781
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

Avatar for kerry88
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 4:00pm
Are you a researcher? I'm asking because many studies compare like subjects...are you saying that every study that compares human beings is faulty?
Kerry with Campbell Elizabeth 11.03.06 and Benjamin Brady 12.10.03
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 4:28pm
I have done no reserch on the numbers of adoptive mothers who BF so I would not feel qualified to make that assumption.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 4:29pm

"Breast milk mixed with PCP, or cocaine, clearly is no longer comparable, anymore than *formula* mixed with one of these substances would be."

Very good point!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-02-2006
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 4:31pm
n/t
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 5:29pm
It will take you about 30 seconds to check it out, with the assumption you know how to use a search engine.
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 5:31pm
I'd say whoever designed that GT program doesn't know much about GT, IQ, or testing, and the girl is better off not to be in it.
Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 5:35pm

Optimal doesn't mean better than normal. They are two different words describing two different things.

Avatar for taylormomma
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 5:39pm

The problem is, if you post and say "the eggos were good enough" you'll get bombarded with posts telling you they weren't.

I've never seen a single post saying that formula is superior to bm. I've seen plenty saying that it's good enough. But the response to that is always a long self-rightous rant about why it's not.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 5:58pm

Statements like this are exactly what I think consider an unintended consequence of bfing advocacy.

"BF has been proven to prevent diabetes AND obesity in mothers and babies alike."

There is an extreme distortion of actual research and serves no useful purpose.

Actual data: bfed infants are *less likely to be* overweight over weight. Not none. Not will not be overweight. Not obesity is prevented. But less likely to be.

Example: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/2/e81/T2

Never bfed, rates of obesity are 13.6%, bfed >12mo rate was 11%. Lower, yes. And statistically significant. But not evidence of "prevention". And this study only found the effect in non-Hispanic white children. It was not similiar in hispanic or black study participants.

Actual data: mothers that bfed are less likely to be obese. Confounded, however, with data showing that obese and overweight mothers are less likely to bfed anyway (also confounding point number one).

An example of this point can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16887431&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum

There are certainly positive findings for bfing and obesity, but nothing that comes close to your assertion that bfing "prevents" obesity in mothers or babies, at least in the way that I am assuming you are using that phrase.

Now, as to "chemicals" and obesity, no diabetes was not where I was going with that at all. Rather, I was refering to the tendency for many chemicals and environmental toxins to be stored in our fat tissue. A large percentage of women in the US are overweight or obese suggesting that their infants are at potentially greater risk for acquiring higher levels of environmental toxins though breastfeeding. Here are a few examples:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12608524&query_hl=21&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12042020&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11065082&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum

In short, not only does dietary intake matter to the quality of breastmilk, but so do environmental exposures - present and past.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Sun, 08-20-2006 - 5:59pm
And? Are you under the impression that I lack information about bfing? I assure you that is not the case.

Pages