 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / August 2008Feeding formula to toddler
I have a question. What's the deal with feeding toddlers formula instead of whole milk? Now granted, I'm a grandmother, so have been out of touch with new trends of feeding infants/toddlers for a long time. But I'd never heard of that. My granddaughter will turn 1 in about a week. She's in the 5th percentile. She's NOT thin, nor is she fat. She's "just right". My dil said she was going to feed her daughter the next step formula once she's a year. I didn't even know there was a "next step" formula. I thought the next step was whole milk? Oh "buy" the way, my granddaughter has been eating real foods for a long time. She loves vegies (brocolli is her fav), she eats meat, fruits, everything. Mom doesn't feed her much juice, because of the sugar, but other than than, she eats everything. Presently she drinks 4 (I think) bottle of 6-8 oz of formula/day. So mom's out there, what's the deal with the formula for 1-2 year olds, and why do they need it? And who needs it? Thanks >I have a question. What's the deal with feeding toddlers formula > instead of whole milk? Now granted, I'm a grandmother, so have been [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Thanks I don't think they need it but I don't think it does any harm either. When I was between 2-5 y.o. my dad got free formula samples. So at home we kids drank that instead of milk. When we drank "milk" elsewhere we thought it tasted funny. Sandie >I have a question. What's the deal with feeding toddlers formula >instead of whole milk? Now granted, I'm a grandmother, so have been [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >So mom's out there, what's the deal with the formula for 1-2 year >olds, and why do they need it? And who needs it? They're not necessary as whole milk is fine at that age; neither are they of any harm. It's like how diluted juice is marketed for babies - one can dilute juice just fine with any potable water source. But some find it convenient, and sometimes it's just a matter of preference - baby preference or adult preference. Banty > In article > <83ce0fac-e4a1-477c-88d6-dbc3a4b416a0@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Banty And both examples (formula or the diluted juice for babies in the store) are always much more expensive. Here, anyways! lol > I have a question. What's the deal with feeding toddlers formula > instead of whole milk? Now granted, I'm a grandmother, so have been [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Thanks No harm, but no reason to either except convenience. When we were travelling in December I bought some "toddler" formula in the airport in London mainly because it didn't have to be refrigerator and we still had another 4-5 hours to go... Ended up tossing it since DD refused to drink it.Of course, she never had infant formula before so perhaps never developed a taste for it. > I have a question. �What's the deal with feeding toddlers formula > instead of whole milk? �Now granted, I'm a grandmother, so have been [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Thanks Could just be a doctor instilling worry over her smallish stature, which could be perfectly normal. I've never used it with any of my kids. They all ate their fruits and veggies just fine still at the age of 1 anyway. Just another way to play on parental worries IMO. I would probably look at it like a multivitamin if I had a noneater. Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything right, and also a success story for the advertising of formula, (formula seems safe, approved, etc.... whereas milk is just milk, haha). It's not a big deal, and your daughter in law will relax in her own sweet time. I have 4 sons, so daughters-in-law are in my future, and I have already imagined the sense of humor and grace that I will need to step back when they overthink mothering my grandchildren some day. I know my own mother in law must have rolled her eyes til they hurt! But she pretty much refrained from commenting (the one exception was my use of a walker: "It will make him bandy-legged!" The only problem with the formula feeding after age 1 is that it is expensive! Otherwise, it is a healthy alternative to regular milk. Just sit back and let your daughter in law find her stride as a mom. Every new mom makes silly mistakes and overthinks things. Just smile and wait for the day you can laugh about it with her, and in the meantime, give her a break whenever she'll allow you to! > Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I > think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is expensive! Otherwise, it is a healthy alternative to regular > milk. Children don't really even *need* to be given cow's milk, ever. After they're weaned from breastmilk or formula, they should get their nutrition from a diet of regular foods, which may include milk and milk products, but not be dominated by them. We never used milk as a beverage or meal substitute. That's a whole other subject, I know. True, Deja! I am 37 and have gotten 4 kids through early childhood.... Sheesh, if I had another baby now I would be SO relaxed about food. It's a pretty simple science, getting nutrients into a growing body! But the mom who insists on formula isn't doing any harm. She might be driving totseug nuts, but food is food. >> Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I >> think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >substitute. >That's a whole other subject, I know. I could never understand those people who wouldn't let you drink a beverage with your meal - like saying, yes you can have your milk, but you have to wait until after dinner. My mom drank milk almost exclusively (except for OJ and sometimes very weak tea and on rare occasions she would drink Canada Dry ginger ale) until she was about 90 when she suddenly became lactose intolerant. We had milk to drink at the table during the meal. I don't really know what is wrong with that. > >> Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I > >> think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > beverage with your meal - like saying, yes you can have your milk, but > you have to wait until after dinner. I don't think that's what deja is saying. Rather, that *milk* is not a requirement for nurtition. Kids don't *need* it, not that they're not allowed to have it. I couldn't imagine not having a drink with my meal, but it's never milk. As for the OP, my daughter was also in the 5% range for weight (and had dropped off the charts for awhile) when she was about 14-18 months. Her pedi and the nurtitionist never said anything about giving her formula. They did encourage me to continue breastfeeding, and possibly increase some of the higher (good) fat foods. >> >> Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I >> >> think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >requirement for nurtition. Kids don't *need* it, not that they're not >allowed to have it. I know that's what she meant, but as she introduced a second subject, I introduced a third one. >I couldn't imagine not having a drink with my meal, but it's never >milk. When I was growing up it was quite common for people not to let their children have a beverage (which was usually milk) while they ate. They couldn't have their milk to drink until afterwards. I don't know whether this has anything to do with the way they dealt with food (like Jewish dietary restrictions) or because the milk might have been raw milk and maybe not as safe or why it was. I just know that my friends didn't have a beverage of any sort with their meal and were expected to drink their glass of milk afterwards. >As for the OP, my daughter was also in the 5% range for weight (and >had dropped off the charts for awhile) when she was about 14-18 >months. Her pedi and the nurtitionist never said anything about giving >her formula. They did encourage me to continue breastfeeding, and >possibly increase some of the higher (good) fat foods. > When I was growing up it was quite common for people not to let their > children have a beverage (which was usually milk) while they ate. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > friends didn't have a beverage of any sort with their meal and were > expected to drink their glass of milk afterwards. I think the most likely explanation is simply that they didn't want their kids filling up on milk (or other drinks) and not eating their meals. Best wishes, Ericka >> When I was growing up it was quite common for people not >> to let their children have a beverage (which was usually [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they didn't want their kids filling up on milk (or other > drinks) and not eating their meals. i think you're right. it's the opposite of the camp i went to, where you were expected to drink an entire 8 ounce glass of water before your meal... that was so they didn't need to feed us as much lee  SignatureLast night while sitting in my chair I pinged a host that wasn't there It wasn't there again today The host resolved to NSA. >> When I was growing up it was quite common for people not to let their >> children have a beverage (which was usually milk) while they ate. They [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >they didn't want their kids filling up on milk (or other >drinks) and not eating their meals. I don't think there was any anxiety back then about children filling up on milk. Rather I think that would have been desirable. I never heard anything about that when I was a kid, nor did anyone that I knew when I was raising my own kids raise that as a problem, although we were supposed to give iron supplements. I didn't hear that children shouldn't fill up on milk until after my children were grown and I came here to the forums. My mother (and my MIL) had some other ideas about food which I don't see much of now. They both thought that it wasn't a good breakfast unless it was fresh squeezed OJ and a soft boiled egg. No other kind of egg was as healthful as soft boiled. We could only have fried, poached, or scrambled as a special treat. I remember my mom giving me cod liver oil too. My mother's grandparents thought that you shouldn't have milk or ice cream at the same time as other foods - that it would make you sick. I can't remember exactly what the other foods were though. >> I think the most likely explanation is simply that >> they didn't want their kids filling up on milk (or other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > shouldn't fill up on milk until after my children were grown and I > came here to the forums. Not to deny your personal experience, but it certainly isn't an entirely recent phenomenon. My grandmother had a bugaboo about that sort of thing that went back to her childhood. It might just not have been something relevant to your family. It was important to eat your food, clean your plate, etc. Fill up on milk and you might not do that. Best wishes, Ericka >>> I think the most likely explanation is simply that >>> they didn't want their kids filling up on milk (or other [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >It was important to eat your food, clean your plate, etc. Fill >up on milk and you might not do that. My mom only gave my sister (picky eater more than me) tiny amounts and I did hear about the hungry children in India or whatever, but milk wasn't the problem - my sister still got a glass of milk for drinking with her meal. Did children really drink their milk instead of eating, do you think? I mean was it such a problem for all children that they should be restricted from having anything at all to drink during the meal? It's kind of similar to adults having coffee to drink after the meal. I don't drink coffee, but when I drink tea (or water or whatever), I want it during the meal. Afterwards wouldn't be good enough. > Did children really drink their milk instead of > eating, do you think? I mean was it such a problem for all children > that they should be restricted from having anything at all to drink > during the meal? Clearly, it isn't/wasn't a universal prohibition. Some families do it and some don't. I think it's clear that some (not all) kids will, in fact, fill up on milk and not eat, particularly if what's on offer isn't their favorite food. Best wishes, Ericka >> Did children really drink their milk instead of >> eating, do you think? I mean was it such a problem for all children [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >some (not all) kids will, in fact, fill up on milk and not >eat, particularly if what's on offer isn't their favorite food. What's wrong with that? If you are trying not to make a battle of food (which I think is desirable), why would you want to force the child to eat what he didn't like by withholding something to drink? >>> Did children really drink their milk instead of >>> eating, do you think? I mean was it such a problem for all children [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > food (which I think is desirable), why would you want to force the > child to eat what he didn't like by withholding something to drink? I think what works is different for different children. I have certainly met a number of children who will cheerfully eat if they haven't already filled up on milk, but won't eat if they have. No battle involved. I think you're making a lot more out of this than necessary. Surely it's not all that surprising that different people have different approaches to meals and that different children respond best to different strategies, then and now? Milk is filling, and for many kids satisfies hunger as well as thirst. Beset wishes, Ericka >>>> Did children really drink their milk instead of >>>> eating, do you think? I mean was it such a problem for all children [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >strategies, then and now? Milk is filling, and for many kids >satisfies hunger as well as thirst. Yeah I always let my son have snacks almost up to dinner if he were really hungry. It was because it didn't impact what he ate at dinner. If he were another kid such that it really impacted his appetite, I would have taken the more traditional route and not let him snack too close to meals. Banty >>>> Did children really drink their milk instead of >>>> eating, do you think? I mean was it such a problem for all children [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > strategies, then and now? Milk is filling, and for many kids > satisfies hunger as well as thirst. And, it works both ways. If my moms group meets at a fast food restaurant with a playland so the kids can run around a bit together when it's too hot to go outside, I'd just as SOON have my DD fill up on a carton of milk first (and deliberately offer the milk first), knowing that by the time she gets hungry again, we'll be home and have better choices. But at home, when we have a variety of foods, I want her to mix it up a bit. She gets dairy, but it's more likely to be in the form of yogurt or cheese as part of a meal, or a glass of milk as a snack before bed, than to get a meal plus a glass of milk as a beverage. > Did children really drink their milk instead of eating, do you think? Some do. My very skinny child always did and still does prefer to drink milk instead of eat food. So I don't withhold the milk, but I make sure he does not get it before the food is served. I serve whole milk and add stuff to the milk that he likes and meets *my* dietary objectives for him: chocolate syrup, cream, fiber. For a long time (years) his weight was far, far below the growth charts. Now he is four and better at eating, and has been catching up, but he remains very skinny. Now instead of being very skinny and short too, he is very skinny and tall. My other child doesn't like milk much, but likes food more and is running 50th pecentile weight for age and 90th percentile height for age. Pologirl > My mother (and my MIL) had some other ideas about food which I don't > see much of now. They both thought that it wasn't a good breakfast > unless it was fresh squeezed OJ and a soft boiled egg. No other kind > of egg was as healthful as soft boiled. We could only have fried, > poached, or scrambled as a special treat. I remember my mom giving me > cod liver oil too. Shades of Donna Parker! > My mother's grandparents thought that you shouldn't have milk or ice > cream at the same time as other foods - that it would make you sick. I > can't remember exactly what the other foods were though. Fruit. You shouldn't mix fruit with milk because it will upset your tummy. SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ >> When I was growing up it was quite common for people not to let their >> children have a beverage (which was usually milk) while they ate. They [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Best wishes, > Ericka I think the Dr. Spock book my mom gave me after I had my first child said something to that effect. > When I was growing up it was quite common for people not to let their > children have a beverage (which was usually milk) while they ate. They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > friends didn't have a beverage of any sort with their meal and were > expected to drink their glass of milk afterwards. I grew up that way and I'm a bit younger than you! I'm 38, and certainly the done thing in 1970s Australia was to give kids a glass of milk at the end of the evening meal. I assume this was a hangover from the post-war era: free milk for school-children ended shortly before I started school in 1975. My Dad, who is 88, is convinced that drinking while eating is unhealthy. He met someone once who *had* to drink when he ate because by drinking while eating, he'd trained his body not to produce saliva. I suppose that's possible, but the man might equally have had Sjogren's Syndrome (an autoimmune disorder that attacks the salivary glands). DH sets out water for everyone at the dinner-table (except on Friday nights, when he has a beer and I have a cider with our meal). I don't generally need to quench my thirst while I am eating and I think the others are the same: most of the water-drinking occurs when the meal is over. Of course, a bottle of shiraz is not there to quench thirst -- that's different! SignatureChookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) http://chookiesbackyard.blogspot.com/ >> When I was growing up it was quite common for people not to let their >> children have a beverage (which was usually milk) while they ate. They [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the evening meal. I assume this was a hangover from the post-war era: free >milk for school-children ended shortly before I started school in 1975. That's very interesting. I don't remember free milk for school children - I don't think we had that here (US) > >My Dad, who is 88, is convinced that drinking while eating is unhealthy. He [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to quench my thirst while I am eating and I think the others are the same: >most of the water-drinking occurs when the meal is over. I am the opposite. I get very thirsty and can drink a most of a glass of water before my meal at a restaurant. (We generally drink water now because I think soft drinks are too salty.) I have no trouble eating a full meal afterwards. At home I drink about 3/4 glass of cranberry juice with my dinner. Sometimes I will have tea - without caffeine if I can get it that way. >Of course, a bottle of shiraz is not there to quench thirst -- that's >different! I am generally too thirsty to drink any alcohol because I would be drunk before dinner. >DH sets out water for everyone at the dinner-table (except on Friday nights, >when he has a beer and I have a cider with our meal). I don't generally need >to quench my thirst while I am eating and I think the others are the same: >most of the water-drinking occurs when the meal is over. Interesting. Both my grandchildren drink water with meals. My autistic grandson will push the food away and want his water and then go back to eating more food. SignatureDorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits >>> Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I >>> think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > at the table during the meal. I don't really know what is wrong with > that. I will let my DD have water with meals, but except for on cereal, she doesn't get to have milk as a beverage because she will drink the milk first, and then not eat a more balanced diet. I think that's pretty common with toddlers and preschoolers. >I could never understand those people who wouldn't let you drink a >beverage with your meal - like saying, yes you can have your milk, but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at the table during the meal. I don't really know what is wrong with >that. The key is with meals not as a substitute for them. We drink water with our meals actually. SignatureDorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits >>> Tootseug, may I venture a guess that this is a 'first child'? I >>> think this is just a case of a mom wanting to do everything [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > at the table during the meal. I don't really know what is wrong with > that. You misunderstood. I do not consider milk a beverage, but rather an optional foodstuff, and one that I highly dislike for many reasons, so I admit prejudice there. With it's sugar and fat content, milk could almost be considered a dessert. I never served it as a drink, thus, we never got in the milk-drinking habit. We drink water (we have a well and the water is free and tasty) or unsweetened iced tea with meals. Have you ever seen the movie "The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio"? Milk milk all over the place, as it probably was everywhere in post WWII America. > Children don't really even *need* to be given cow's milk, ever. After > they're weaned from breastmilk or formula, they should get their nutrition > from a diet of regular foods, which may include milk and milk products, but > not be dominated by them. We never used milk as a beverage or meal > substitute. That's a whole other subject, I know. Yes indeed and I agree. However my concern with the OP question is not with drinking the formula (which I am sure is chockful of vitamins/minerals/EFA's etc etc so probably far better for the child than cows milk IMHO) but that its given in a bottle form. I wonder about teeth formation - does she ever drink it from a cup? Does she drink other liquids from a cup? Does a bottle still go to bed with her at night? That could be another problem down the road. Potty training too might be more difficult if a child has unregulated bottle feedings thruout the day. But other than that, I wouldnt push the milk over formula. joanne joni schrieb: >> Children don't really even *need* to be given cow's milk, ever. After >> they're weaned from breastmilk or formula, they should get their nutrition [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > etc > so probably far better for the child than cows milk IMHO) but that its It's a highly processed food. Just because you first strip something of its vitamins by "super-heating" and drying it and then adding more and different vitamins to it doesn't make it a superior food. That said, I think that again, this is something the mother has to decide and not the grandmother. > given in a bottle form. I wonder about teeth formation - does she > ever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Potty training too might be more difficult if a child has unregulated > bottle feedings thruout the day. The child in question is not yet a year old. I think it's a bit early to think about potty training ;-) cu nicole > The child in question is not yet a year old. I think it's a bit early to > think about potty training ;-) Well I started training Ds#1 at 2 and he was trained at 2 1/2. Ds#2 started at 4 months but he wasn't trained until age 2 1/2. Betweeen start time and him being trained he stayed dry as long as I put him on the pot often enough. I tried to do that whenever I went. But he didn't really tell me when he needed to go until about 2 1/2. Started dd at about 4 months too and she was completely trained at age 1 1/2. As soon as she learned the word pee, she would tell me. And if I didn't take her fast enough she would cry over wet diapers. She just didn't like being wet. What I mean by trained is dry all day and night with only accidents. Sandie Sandie Hudson schrieb: >> The child in question is not yet a year old. I think it's a bit early to >> think about potty training ;-) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What I mean by trained is dry all day and night with only accidents. Thanks for the first laugh of my day. cu nicole >Sandie Hudson schrieb: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Thanks for the first laugh of my day. Laughing at how descriptions of early potty training always seem to include references to "accidents"? Banty Banty schrieb: >> Sandie Hudson schrieb: >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Laughing at how descriptions of early potty training always seem to include > references to "accidents"? No, generally laughing at potty training children clearly not ready, children panicking about peeing in their diapers because of the early "Oh, don't pee your panties, only babies pee in the diapers" and all that. Laughing because of "potty training" for between a year and two months and two years two months. I mean yes, it is potty training, but it's not the kids getting trained and of course those accidents are accidents, but the mothers, because she wasn't fast enough. Isn't there even an entire method of no diapers where you basically study the kid to know when they're about to pee/poop and then hold them over a potty/the toilet so they never get used to diapers and therefore won't be as hard to potty-train? cu nicole > Banty schrieb: >>> Sandie Hudson schrieb: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > potty/the toilet so they never get used to diapers and therefore won't be > as hard to potty-train? What I meant by accidents was rare accidents. Once every few weeks or so. Sorry I wasn't explicit. Yes the training time was long if you look at it that way. But the way I look at it, it is just a gradual process like anything else you teach them. They don't learn to eat table food over night at the age of three, for instance. It didn't take any extra time as I mostly just took them to the toilet when I went. Then when they learned to talk they asked when they wanted to go. No pressure at all to do so. They took the lead in that. And certainly no such ugly talk like you assumed. I never said anyting like that to any of my kids. My daughter just hated being wet. My mom said I was the same way. She said I would acutally take my diaper off and wet the ground when I was outside. And I undrstand that I embarassed my older sister a lot by taking my wet swimsuit off in the wading pool too. And having dry diapers and saving on disposables and laundry for that long time was nice too and saved us money. Laugh if you want. To each his own. But why be so critical of others? Take a chill pill for heaven's sake. S >> Banty schrieb: >>>> Sandie Hudson schrieb: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >toilet when I went. Then when they learned to talk they asked when they >wanted to go. No pressure at all to do so. They took the lead in that. Well, say if you taught bicycle riding the way you did potty training - - At one year old or less, holding them in the seat while you walk along. By 18 months, letting go for five seconds at a time, then catching, keeping forward motion. By about three, getting extensions for the pedals and helping them to turn their little legs. Etc. etc. See, not everything gets learned gggrrraaadduuuuaalallllee. Child let potty training is more like learning to ride a bicycle. Learn when ready. >And certainly no such ugly talk like you assumed. I never said anyting like >that to any of my kids. My daughter just hated being wet. My mom said I was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Laugh if you want. To each his own. But why be so critical of others? Take a >chill pill for heaven's sake. Well, to each their own as you say. But one of the problems with potty training later is all the folks keeping tabs on if one has potty trained yet! Banty Sandie Hudson schrieb: >> Banty schrieb: >>>> Thanks for the first laugh of my day. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > toilet when I went. Then when they learned to talk they asked when they > wanted to go. No pressure at all to do so. They took the lead in that. Jup, my son took the lead. Dry in one week. No accidents. > And certainly no such ugly talk like you assumed. I never said anyting like > that to any of my kids. My daughter just hated being wet. My mom said I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And having dry diapers and saving on disposables and laundry for that long > time was nice too and saved us money. Sure, I use cloth, saves me money every day of the week, and time and space and nature... I would personally not "train" my kids to do anything for 2.5 years, not something that's yes/no anyway. You can't gradually potty train, either they're dry (day and night) or they're not. Sam learned to ride his bike in two weeks, on his own, because he wanted to. Sara had pureed food a handful of times (hated it) and eats fruit unpeeled and cut into wedges now at nearly a year, we're not anywhere near weaning either. No, I don't expect her to eat what I eat, but I won't "train" her to eat what I eat for over two years, I expect her to eat what we eat when she's around 2 years old, depending on how soon she'll have all her necessary teeth (slow teethers in this family, thankfully). > Laugh if you want. To each his own. But why be so critical of others? Take a > chill pill for heaven's sake. I actually wasn't criticizing you personally but the entire mindset of a) potty training is so important that you have to start it as soon as humanly possible b) if a child isn't trained by x years of age you've failed to teach them to use the toilet c) whenever a child isn't ready to potty train they're not _not ready_ they have _accidents_. But I have learned that reform won't happen so I laugh instead, saves me time. cu nicole >I would personally not "train" my kids to do anything for 2.5 years, not >something that's yes/no anyway. You can't gradually potty train, either >they're dry (day and night) or they're not. I am not explaining very well what I did. Basically all I did was when I went to the toilet I sat them on it first. If they peed great. They usually did and then I would change their diaper or if it was dry just put the same one back on. At some point there came a time when they were always dry. Then there came a time when they told me they needed to go. Then there came a point when they went by themselves. > Sam learned to ride his bike in two weeks, on his own, because he wanted > to. Mine learned that gradually too, I confess. I guess I'm just a gradual kind of person. I tend to approach a lot of things in life in stages. First a sit-on toy to move by foot power, then a trike, then a small bike with trainers, then raise the trainers, then take them off, then a bigger bike. >Sara had pureed food a handful of times (hated it) and eats fruit > unpeeled and cut into wedges now at nearly a year, we're not anywhere near > weaning either. No, I don't expect her to eat what I eat, but I won't > "train" her to eat what I eat for over two years, Mine were breast feed, then we added juice or water in a cup. When we added food, it was selected items from our regular table food that we simply mashed up. This was when they got old enough to reach for it. We tried a few jars of baby food. But them didn't care much for that. Later we progresesd to cut up food and so forth. Weaning was when they stopped wanting to nurse. >I actually wasn't criticizing you personally but the entire mindset of If I'm of any mindset, at all, it is this: -every mom is different -every dad is different -every child is different -what works well for one child may or may not work well for the next -everyone has to live their one life their own way. "In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things love." Have a great weekend, Sandie [...] > I actually wasn't criticizing you personally but the entire mindset of > a) potty training is so important that you have to start it as soon as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > c) whenever a child isn't ready to potty train they're not _not ready_ > they have _accidents_. Blimey. Anything else you'd like to read, while you're at it, into a post that just read to me as a description of what the poster did that she felt worked for her? All the best, Sarah Sarah V. schrieb: > [...] >> I actually wasn't criticizing you personally but the entire mindset of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > post that just read to me as a description of what the poster did that > she felt worked for her? -> "I actually wasn't criticizing you personally but the entire mindset of..." I stated what I do not like in general, when potty training very young children comes up. I didn't say I was reading that into her post, in fact I explicitly said that I didn't criticize her personally. cu nicole I have a rather thick skin. I am used to being criticized for toilet training my kids early. But it really doesn't bother me. It was long ago and they are grown or almost so now anyway. It does bother me when I see kids today wearing, what I consider uncomfortable, dirty or wet diapers because their moms haven't trained them yet. Remember I was one that didn't like being wet or dirty from about age 1. I have even seen kids that could already read who were still in diapers. Something tells me they could be trained if mom tried. But I bite my tongue and keep my thoughts to myself. That is the way thngs seems to be done today. Oh well. Now when I tell folks that all 3 of my kids began to talk at 4 months. And that the second two were taught to do that by the older one(s). I am just looked at like I am totally crazy. Have a good day. Sandie > Now when I tell folks that all 3 of my kids began to talk at 4 months. And > that the second two were taught to do that by the older one(s). I am just > looked at like I am totally crazy. You can't blame them, as that is pretty much unheard of. What exactly did they say? >> Now when I tell folks that all 3 of my kids began to talk at 4 months. >> And that the second two were taught to do that by the older one(s). I am >> just looked at like I am totally crazy. > > You can't blame them, as that is pretty much unheard of. What exactly did > they say? There is quite a few years between each; they are now almost 29, almost 22, and 17 1/2. Their first words were "hey" and "hi". I think #1 one uttered it accidentally and saw that it got him attention, which he loved. When we were out, he would call out hey or hi to folks. And they would stop and talk to him. They were surprised to hear a baby so young "talk". When #1 was older, everyone told him these stories. So when #2 came along, #1 was determined to "teach" him to do this too; and he did. And then later, they both "taught" #3. They seemed to have great fun "teaching the baby". These attention getting words were followed later by mama and dada and other words at a slightly early to normal age. #1 also sang in tunes before he could speak. He is now a singer/songwriter/guitarist. Sandie >>> Now when I tell folks that all 3 of my kids began to talk at 4 months. >>> And that the second two were taught to do that by the older one(s). I am [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >#1 was determined to "teach" him to do this too; and he did. And then later, >they both "taught" #3. They seemed to have great fun "teaching the baby". But this is something quite different from what people normally mean by "speak". I think if a baby babbled "Ma ma ma ma" and everyone got excited that he was really saying "mother", he'd say it more. But, once he was found to say "Ma ma ma ma" to the cat, to a truck, to the wheels on the tractor, to a spoon, it wouldn't be considered "speaking" and most people wouldn't announce that as the age at which he started to speak. I recall walking along our apartment complex, which had a lot of woods around it, when my son was about six or eight months. I pointed out a squirrel saying "see, squirrel squirrel" (my Dad repeated 'squirrel' twice when he say one, I guess I picked up that...). And my son uttered something like "skwrrr". I was amazed! His first word could be something so complex! Well, he never did it again. I would not count that as actually having started to speak. This may tie into the toilet training, which seems to be a matter of definition, too. See, the holding-over-toilet kind of toilet training is regarded by a lot of folks to be more mommy-training than baby-training. And something that, if one has more time, and more squick factor when it comes to changing diapers, might work out for some moms. But, as a single mother with an engineering job and as an ex-EMT, my time factor is low and my squick factor is too :-) So I'm not motivated to mommy-train myself to spend minutes and minutes holding a baby over a commode. And when "occasional accident" is brought up too, that *really* points to saying a baby is toilet trained using a more liberal definition of it. Dare I mention to say that there seems to be a lot of drive to describe *early* developments and successes on Sandie's part? Because we who believe in child-led development get pretty irritated by "has he yet, when is he gonna, when are you gonna" stuff from comparing these developmental and toilet training ages amongst mothers and especially from our parent's generation. Banty Banty schrieb: <snip for bandwidth> > Dare I mention to say that there seems to be a lot of drive to describe *early* > developments and successes on Sandie's part? Because we who believe in > child-led development get pretty irritated by "has he yet, when is he gonna, > when are you gonna" stuff from comparing these developmental and toilet training > ages amongst mothers and especially from our parent's generation. Thank you for saying everything I couldn't put words around. So, Sara has been saying hi and mamamam an bah for a few months, so she's speaking, right. Sam said "hmhm" and "ma" until he was nearly three and a half, he has a speech development delay, but by Sandie's definition he was speaking at a year, because he said "Hmhm" and "ma"? And the point above, about comparing "trained mothers" with "trained children", yes, that really bothers me. My birthmother started nagging about potty training Sam when he was about a year or a year and a half. He trained pretty much on his own at 4. He has sensory issues (would not cuddle, hated being stroked, as it was sensory overload for him, he' still got the problem with hearing, it's complex.) and simply could not understand how the "tickly feeling" and peeing went together. Had I started holding him over the pot at 9 months I'd have surely done harm as he would not have been able to communicate his need to go to the toilet because of his sensory issues _and_ his speech development delay. Sara was 4 months old when I was asked "is she walking yet". Because she has lots of hair (first pigtails at 5 months, thankyouverymuch...) and is on the tall end of the charts. She's still not walking at nearly a year and I'm not worried, she's crawling just fine and she'll walk when she's ready. But I am being asked about it more often now. Same with solids, weaning, pacifiers,... Isn't it enough that we as mothers question our decisions and our ability do "do everything right"? Does everyone have to come up and say "My kid trained at 2" and then someone chips in with "Ha, mine trained at 20 months" next thing you know your sisters boyfriends neighbours cousin twice removed trained at 3 months, right after learning to speak entire sentences and walking the dog, by himself, at night, in winter, up a hill, both ways. cu nicole > In article <g8esvj$75...@foggy.unx.sas.com>, Sandie Hudson says... > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > amazed! His first word could be something so complex! Well, he never did it > again. I would not count that as actually having started to speak. DD's first word, around 9 months, was "sante!" and she knew the meaning, more or less, she would pick up her sippy cup to clink with the glasses. And she said it A LOT. But for the next 10-12 months, didn't say much more at all. Now she doesn't stop talking ;) Of course this is the 2 yr old who can unbuckle her car seat, open a 'child proof' pill bottle, unlock a door, and other wonderful things ;) >> In article <g8esvj$75...@foggy.unx.sas.com>, Sandie Hudson says... >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >the glasses. And she said it A LOT. But for the next 10-12 months, >didn't say much more at all. Now she doesn't stop talking ;) When I was a kid, a neighbor's kid's first word was "Batman!". From everyone else running around singing the theme song of the TV show. Banty > In article <86c53536-9114-4ac1-a180-fb41a82b0...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > cjra says... [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Banty Well, I was worried her first word would be some variation on @$%$#! which I had a tendency to say many mornings driving her to daycare, trying to merge onto the highway and the stupid %$#@&! drivers not letting me.... Fortunately that didn't happen, and I'm more careful now ;) >>> Now when I tell folks that all 3 of my kids began to talk at 4 months. >>> And that the second two were taught to do that by the older one(s). I am [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Their first words were "hey" and "hi". I don't really want to break your bubble, but babies often imitate sounds and then they repeat them over and over and over again. The sounds of "hey" and "hi" are very simple and it sounds like they were merely babbling and just repeating sounds. Unless, of course, they quickly acquired other sounds that they used appropriately. MIL always talks about DH's first word as being I think "cat," which he was calling some other animal. She insists he knew what that meant and was mistaking the animal for a cat. I dunno. DS took a couple of steps when he was standing and someone let go. MIL said I needed to count that in the books as his first steps. Took a long time before his first purposeful steps, though. DD would push herself to standing when I carried her. If I let her hold my hands for balance, she could stand at 2 mo, holding all her own weight. I did not count her as standing until she could pull herself up to stand, though. Hi -- The "early toilet training" you refer to (when you hold your infant over the commode) is usually, these days, referred to as "elimination communication". It typically starts when the child is 1-4 months old, and really shouldn't be confused with "toilet training" that older babies (1-3 years) engage in. Elimination communication is used routinely in the 3rd world, where diapers and cleaning facilities are hard to come by. It's very effective and, if you practice attachment parenting, also very easy. I have a friend who used it for both her boys, and says that from the time they were 6 months old, she could count on one hand (and remember!) each bowel movement that required a diaper change. (Each was caused by extenuating circumstances, such as a stomach bug, or being trapped in a car on the highway.) I rather like it, because it's cleaner, healthier for the baby, and better for the environment. But it's certainly not for everybody! And I didn't do it myself, although I think I'd have headed off some issues if I had. Now, as for speaking, that has so many stages that it's easy for different parents to define "speaking" in different ways. I know my older child, who entered nursery school at age 22 months, asked (in complete sentences) why so many of the other children in his class couldn't talk yet. (They were all within 3 months of his age.) So his definition didn't include the single words that his peeers were engaging in. But in the long run, it turns out not to have made a huge difference. The group is entering 8th grade now, with lots of highly gifted and verbal kids. (For that matter, all of them needed their diapers during that 2-year old year, and none of them do anymore.) It's much easier to relax about these things once your kids are older. I get to stress about actually turning in homework now, because our current issue is having kids who do their work reliably but too often leave it to rot in the backpack. My two cents, --Beth Kevles bethkevles@gmail.PUT-THE-COM-HERE http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the GMAIL one if you would like me to reply. >Hi -- > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >it's certainly not for everybody! And I didn't do it myself, although I >think I'd have headed off some issues if I had. My friend from Russia does that. She's not working, though. Nothing wrong with it; but it's not "toilet training" as normally understood. And it does take a lot of time. We have conversations in the bathroom :-) >Now, as for speaking, that has so many stages that it's easy for >different parents to define "speaking" in different ways. I know my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >current issue is having kids who do their work reliably but too often >leave it to rot in the backpack. My kid too! Maybe there needs to be an "actually-turn-in-homework" milestone. Banty ("Soooo - it he actually-turning-in-his-homework yet? MINE did that at FIVE!") >>>> Now when I tell folks that all 3 of my kids began to talk at 4 months. >>>> And that the second two were taught to do that by the older one(s). I am [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >did not count her as standing until she could pull herself up to stand, >though. The average for truly walking is about 12 1/2 months, I think. That does not count the step between the sofa and the chair while cruising, or reaching for something and taking a step then falling. I don't know if it counts the few loadly coaxed steps between mommy and daddy with video recorders busy at work. I count my son as having walked at about exactly that age when he truly was taking his first walking steps to get somewhere. But, he was taking steps here and there before then. My dad told me I first started walking at that age too, when mom was in the hospital after birthing my little brother and he was busy at home for about half and hour, then realized with a little alarm he hadn't checked on me for awhile. He found me toddling up and down the bedroom hallway grinning. That's definitely walking. But a lot of people suweeeaarr their baby started walking at about the age when they're probably really cruising from one thing to another. Banty >The average for truly walking is about 12 1/2 months, I think. That does not >count the step between the sofa and the chair while cruising, or reaching for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >taking his first walking steps to get somewhere. But, he was taking steps here >and there before then. Well I counted letting go of the coffee table and taking a step on her own and then sitting down (with control and without holding on) afterwards as walking with dd#1. An unassisted and un coached step. It happened on her first birthday. And I counted dd#2 climbing out of the playpen at 8 or 9 months as walking too, although I guess it wasn't really walking so much as climbing. It thought ds did the same, but found out MANY years later that dd#2 was taking him out of the playpen. He DID climb quite early all on his own though, as I saw him do it. >My dad told me I first started walking at that age too, when mom was in the >hospital after birthing my little brother and he was busy at home for about half [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But a lot of people suweeeaarr their baby started walking at about the age when >they're probably really cruising from one thing to another. I think cruising from one thing to another is walking. A single step if the beginning. They don't have to run a marathon. It doesn't really matter how you define it though - there's no standards to be met. Who cares if I define walking as the first single unassisted step and you define it as taking several steps to get somewhere? > It doesn't really matter how you define it though - there's no > standards to be met. Who cares if I define walking as the first > single unassisted step and you define it as taking several steps to > get somewhere? Because I think new mothers, who are very unsure of themselves, find they are getting advice from people whose children "talked" at this age and "walked" at that. It makes them feel like there might be something wrong when in reality, the people's memories are warped or the talking and walking were defined very, very liberally. A lot of times, it is expressed as, "Is Jenny (1yo) walking yet? No? My William started walking when he was 6mo." > > It doesn't really matter how you define it though - there's no > > standards to be met. Who cares if I define walking as the first [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > were defined very, very liberally. A lot of times, it is expressed as, "Is > Jenny (1yo) walking yet? No? My William started walking when he was 6mo." Having a late walker and a late talker, but not feeling particularly insecure about it, I concur...it's just annoying as hell, because the comments are usually so loaded. "She's not walking YET?!" "She's not talking YET?!" It all gets old real fast, you get tired of telling people No, and dealing with the questions/comments from self-appointed experts about how 'behind' she is, except her specialist who wasn't at all worried because her cognitive skills (less obvious to outsiders who want to measure everything) were far beyond expectations. Not to mention that she's learning 2+ languages... I don't get the whole pride thing about how 'early' a baby did something. Maybe I'd feel different if my kid was an early bloomer rather than a late bloomer, but I figured as long as she was making appropriate progress, I wasn't too worried. I was an "early bloomer" but I don't think that's given me any special advantage in life (DD ended up walking in earnest at 18 months - well, taking off and running! and language has begun to explode about 24 months. Potty training is well in progress, but no thanks to mom and dad, thanks to her babysitter...) >> > It doesn't really matter how you define it though - there's no >> > standards to be met. Who cares if I define walking as the first [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> were defined very, very liberally. A lot of times, it is expressed as, "Is >> Jenny (1yo) walking yet? No? My William started walking when he was 6mo." But we are not talking here about new mothers, as both your child and my children are way past that. As far as memories being warped - usually with the first one you remember all the milestones. It's when you have more than one or two that the memory starts to go. Proving I guess that having children is bad for your mental health <g> >Having a late walker and a late talker, but not feeling particularly >insecure about it, I concur...it's just annoying as hell, because the >comments are usually so loaded. "She's not walking YET?!" "She's not >talking YET?!" Well you can always lie. If I had ever had a late one, and someone had said "She's not walking YET?" I would have said in an extremely heartfelt way, "No, thank GOODNESS!!!" [I recommend this response] >It all gets old real fast, you get tired of telling people No, and >dealing with the questions/comments from self-appointed experts about [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >training is well in progress, but no thanks to mom and dad, thanks to >her babysitter...) My #3 child was so tiny that she was universally thought to be much younger than she was (an this lasted a fair way into her teen years) So she got credit for being way more advanced for her age than she was. The big problem comes for some of my grandchildren who were extremely large for their ages and therefore expected to act the age they were perceived to be. Rosalie B. schrieb: >> Having a late walker and a late talker, but not feeling particularly >> insecure about it, I concur...it's just annoying as hell, because the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > YET?" I would have said in an extremely heartfelt way, "No, thank > GOODNESS!!!" [I recommend this response] I second this advice. It's my current answer to the "Is she walking yet" I get a lot (again, lots of hair apparently means you have a two year old). cu nicole >Rosalie B. schrieb: >>> Having a late walker and a late talker, but not feeling particularly [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I second this advice. It's my current answer to the "Is she walking yet" >I get a lot (again, lots of hair apparently means you have a two year old). It is a good answer. It covers the case where someone is just trying to make conversation, too. As well as throwing the more intrusive folks off kilter. It's like when someone blurts out something like "you listen to that world-music stuff??!?", the best answer is "You mean *you* don't??" Banty >>> > It doesn't really matter how you define it though - there's no >>> > standards to be met. Who cares if I define walking as the first [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But we are not talking here about new mothers, as both your child and > my children are way past that. But that is the answer to your question as to why it matters. Because the new moms get quite upset over it when experienced moms talk in such ways. I remind myself not to do any such thing because of how I remember it feeling. It's much better with DD. She was hitting all the milestones at the same time as DS, so I never had to worry. And also people didn't think I didn't know what I was doing (or else set in my ways), so they didn't offer their opinions and advice. > I don't get the whole pride thing about how 'early' a baby did > something. Maybe I'd feel different if my kid was an early bloomer > rather than a late bloomer, but I figured as long as she was making > appropriate progress, I wasn't too worried. I think you all are making way to much out of this. We all take pride in our babies for whatever is unique about them. If my babies walked or talked very early, I'd take pride in that. If my baby was ahead cognitively, like yours, I'd take pride in that. I certainly was very proud when my babies walked, laughed, talked, all those little milestones. -- Nikki, mama to 4 boys. Nikki schrieb: >> I don't get the whole pride thing about how 'early' a baby did >> something. Maybe I'd feel different if my kid was an early bloomer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cognitively, like yours, I'd take pride in that. I certainly was very > proud when my babies walked, laughed, talked, all those little milestones. Sure. But hearing "You need to potty train" over and over when the kid is a year old, to hear "You have to get his hearing checked" over and over at one and a half because he was not speaking (he hears just fine) and my ped wasn't worried yet, hearing about how I'm not feeding him proper food because I was a vegetarian,... I'm not saying being proud is wrong, it's just that pushing other mothers to do something because your child happened to do it early is, well, not wrong, just very very tiring for the other mother. cu nicole >> I don't get the whole pride thing about how 'early' a baby did >> something. Maybe I'd feel different if my kid was an early bloomer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >cognitively, like yours, I'd take pride in that. I certainly was very >proud when my babies walked, laughed, talked, all those little milestones. The main point is not to make it a competition. But the thing is, these things are mainly set by genetics. All that parents can really take pride in is that they didn't get in the way. Banty >>> I don't get the whole pride thing about how 'early' a baby did >>> something. Maybe I'd feel different if my kid was an early bloomer [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Banty Well sure. My kids aren't early on anything and late on half of it (and a couple of them are really big for age) so I understand the frustration sometimes. I guess the milestone thing didn't irritate me so much even though I did have experience with it. I saw it as parents just sharing info and notes on their babies and when they did things. I am not competitive by nature and I imagine that may make a difference. I did get really irritated at 'opinions' on my parenting practices because I saw that not as sharing but intrusive criticism so I'm more touchy on those things :) We all have our hot buttons I suppose. -- Nikki, mama to 4 boys >>>> I don't get the whole pride thing about how 'early' a baby did >>>> something. Maybe I'd feel different if my kid was an early bloomer [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >because I saw that not as sharing but intrusive criticism so I'm more >touchy on those things :) We all have our hot buttons I suppose. I do think a lot of times people *are* just making conversation. That's why answers like "he's not walking yet thank goodness!" are handy. They're not offputting to the person who is just making conversation, but they set a different tack of conversation for the competitive or intrusive folks. Also, one can know from how they handle the remark if they were just making conversation or not. They'll either laugh and say "yeah my life changed once I had a walking critter running around the house" and you'll know either they were just making conversation, or they're a bit competitive or intrusive but they're taking your hint (both are equally good as we dont know what people are really thinking anyway). If they start in with something like "but really he should be walking by now shouldn't he??" then you know where they're coming from for sure. Anyone have answers for that kind of thing? Potty training it kind of a different thing. IMO and IME it's more of a developmental milestone (as in, so often child-led potty training happens at 3 1/2 years I'm pretty convinced it's developmental) but it's a matter of parenting approach as well. And we believers in child-led potty training get the "why" question. It's hard to believe its just comparing notes and making conversation when one is being asked "*why isn't she...". Sleeping through the night is another one. A mix of genetics and parenting approach. On that one, I personally had a different problem - my baby really did sleep through the night pretty much from birth (if we define 6 hours as through the night but hey, that's usually my night's sleep as an adult). I was more worried about folks being jealous than looking like I'm bragging. Banty > Potty training it kind of a different thing. IMO and IME it's more of a > developmental milestone (as in, so often child-led potty training happens at 3 > 1/2 years I'm pretty convinced it's developmental) but it's a matter of > parenting approach as well. And we believers in child-led potty training get > the "why" question. It's hard to believe its just comparing notes and making > conversation when one is being asked "*why isn't she...". I'm conflicted on the potty training. My older boys were well past 3yo so I guess child-led. They sure didn't train in one day and the late training created some other issues for us. I plan on trying to train my younger boys at 2.5yo. I think they can do it. I hope so. > Sleeping through the night is another one. A mix of genetics and parenting > approach. That might be one of my hot button issues ;) I agree with you and people get very critical. Mine were still waking up when people stopped asking because it didn't occur to anyone that a child would NOT be sleeping by then, lol. I can usually come up with a nasty reply if I really want to though. I'm evil like that, lol. Basically my approach to my hot button issues is to a)Lie - sort of 'Yes, he sleeps.' wasn't really a lie. Just a little twist on the truth. or b)do not give an answer that invites any discussion and never defend myself. If I just stop talking about it so will everyone else and if they don't I either walk off or change the subject. c) get snippy 'Why do you ask?' That is kind of snippy because lots of times people are just making harmless chit chat and this is rather rude. I use it only when I know the intent of the person and they deserve it or for questions that are intrusive/personal. >> Sleeping through the night is another one. A mix of genetics and >> parenting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > then, lol. I can usually come up with a nasty reply if I really want to > though. I'm evil like that, lol. My kids would go through periods or waking once a night or so, but it was no big deal to me. I did not feel sleep-deprived, but I got things from others, like MIL, who said DS was too old to be waking up at night, to others who were convinced I needed strategies to make him sleep longer. No really, it's not a problem for me. They just couldn't believe it, I guess. > Sleeping through the night is another one. A mix of genetics and > parenting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I was > more worried about folks being jealous than looking like I'm bragging. DD did that the first night back from the hospital. I woke up in a panic thinking something was wrong. <snip> >>I did get really irritated at 'opinions' on my parenting practices >>because I saw that not as sharing but intrusive criticism so I'm more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >walking by now shouldn't he??" then you know where they're coming from for sure. >Anyone have answers for that kind of thing? Really??? with an astonished look. You don't SAY. Or just laugh. Or change the subject or ask them a question like "When does your mother say that you started to ... "whatever they are asking about. If it's your MIL, then the question is -"When did dh start to do.." whatever. "Tell me about it, I bet he was.." some characteristic of dh. Most MILs will not be able to resist telling you their experience. >Potty training it kind of a different thing. IMO and IME it's more of a >developmental milestone (as in, so often child-led potty training happens at 3 >1/2 years I'm pretty convinced it's developmental) but it's a matter of >parenting approach as well. And we believers in child-led potty training get >the "why" question. It's hard to believe its just comparing notes and making >conversation when one is being asked "*why isn't she...". I don't know whether I did child-led or not. I know my mother did the elimination training with me - holding me over the potty. She also trained dd#1 for me at almost 3. DD#2 trained when she was ready and she was ready at 2.5. I really do not remember about DD#3 or DS. They are able to handle their own toileting now (at age 37 and 40) so someone must have done something. Maybe dd#1 trained DS. She was 10 when he was born and she did not think I could put diapers on very well and would often redo them for me. >Sleeping through the night is another one. A mix of genetics and parenting >approach. On that one, I personally had a different problem - my baby really >did sleep through the night pretty much from birth (if we define 6 hours as >through the night but hey, that's usually my night's sleep as an adult). I was >more worried about folks being jealous than looking like I'm bragging. Mine were the same. So I have no advice for people who are having problems. Mine just were put down to sleep and slept. > In article <dq-dnVyljqBmoTHVnZ2dnUVZ_gydn...@prairiewave.com>, Nikki says... > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > walking by now shouldn't he??" then you know where they're coming from for sure. > Anyone have answers for that kind of thing? FWIW - when this has been asked of us in real life, about 80% of the time it's just making conversation, but as DD got older (and she was small so she looked young for her age), the questions were much more directed. Not necessarily competitive, as it typically wasn't other new moms, but older women (tho some not so old but already past the little ones years moms). Instead, it was more along the lines of 'what's the problem?" because it was usually followed with "aren't you worried? Has she been evaluated by a specialist yet?" etc etc. That got kind of tiresome. I had my moments of concern, but her specialist assured me all was fine. For the most part those comments didn't play into a fear, but it's annoying to have to justify your child's developmental stages to people, sometimes very random people (it's amazing how nosy people can be!). My usual response *was* "No, thankfully! She's into everything as it is. We're in for trouble once she really starts walking!" But often the response back to me was as stated above. I do find competition extremely annoying, as I am not at all competitive by nature, but fortunately that was rarely the case in real life (I do see it online a lot, but that's easier to ignore). As for pride, it's a funny thing. I do feel very good about all sorts of things about DD, but none of her developmental stuff really has to do with me ;). Probably the one thing that made me 'proud' was the nurtitionists' rave about her diet at 12 months (whole different story now...) because that was directly related to something I did. However, I don't feel I can take responsibility for her advanced cognitive development. It's not my accomplishment. And while it's possible a parent could be responsible for a child's late development, I don't feel we did anything to hinder that. She decided to do it when she wanted to do it. Pride is a mixed bag though, I'm sure as a parent I'll feel proud of DD's accomplishments over the years, but I'll be proud of her, rather than of myself, hopefully. > Potty training it kind of a different thing. IMO and IME it's more of a > developmental milestone (as in, so often child-led potty training happens at 3 > 1/2 years I'm pretty convinced it's developmental) but it's a matter of > parenting approach as well. And we believers in child-led potty training get > the "why" question. It's hard to believe its just comparing notes and making > conversation when one is being asked "*why isn't she...". That's it - the 'why isn't she/he...." rather than "Is he/she?" Of course if it's the 20th time the parent has been asked in a few days, it's reasonable for them to get annoyed. That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and DD seems well on her way to potty training. Definitely not overnight > Sleeping through the night is another one. A mix of genetics and parenting > approach. On that one, I personally had a different problem - my baby really > did sleep through the night pretty much from birth (if we define 6 hours as > through the night but hey, that's usually my night's sleep as an adult). I was > more worried about folks being jealous than looking like I'm bragging. Ugh. I have a non-sleeper. Still. It got better there for awhile, and she IS sleeping longer stretches, but putting her to bed is still a problem. Maybe that has to do with our actions, maybe not. We've tried every trick. But like Nikki, people have stopped asking, because everyone assumes by 2 she is sleeping well. It never bothered me when people said their kids slept through early. If that's all they said. Sure I was jealous, but that's not so annoying even if it is bragging. It's when the tone comes with an implication that you're a bad parent because your kid is not sleeping (esp when they insist it's because you didn't try whatever technique they think works). I'm not particularly prone to think everyone is causing me offense. Quite the opposite, so it's not just being extra sensitive. But in person, tone is pretty obvious, and it may not be a lot of people doing it, but all it takes is a few to seem like a million when you're a sleep deprived new mom. > FWIW - when this has been asked of us in real life, about 80% of the > time it's just making conversation, but as DD got older (and she was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > developmental stages to people, sometimes very random people (it's > amazing how nosy people can be!). My aggravation has largely come from in-laws. Stuff like, "why don't you give a bottle, why isn't he potty trained yet,you REALLY NEED to start the potty training now, she REALLY NEEDS to go to preschool" My MIL can be aggravating enough, but my GMIL is even worse, because whenever she says, "You have to do X." and I say, "We don't do X because of Y." She sneers, "Well, I just did everything wrong, didn't I? It's a wonder my kids survived!" Which luckily she's stopped, because after five kids worth, I'm probably not far from telling her to go shove her martyred attitude up someplace uncomfortable and leave me alone already. Michelle Flutist "toypup" <toypup@hotmail.com> wrote in messaghickening > Because I think new mothers, who are very unsure of themselves, find >they > are getting advice from people whose children "talked" at this age >and > "walked" at that. It makes them feel like there might be something >wrong > when in reality, the people's memories are warped or the talking >and > walking were defined very, very liberally. I really don't appreciate that my mind is warped because I do remember when my kids walked or potty trained even if it was early. I remember the early things because in fact it was early and unusual. DD3 walked at 10 months and I am talking full strides down the hall and all over the house. I remember that because it was much earlier than the other two. She was trying to keep up with her sisters. She also talked earlier and potty trained earlier, again, not that my mind is warped and I am trying to say all kids should be like this, because it was in fact earlier. DD1 first word was our dog's name Beau, but I can't remember when. DD1 and DD2 walked at approximately a year old, because it was significant for me. SignatureSue (mom to three girls) |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message