> Snug wrapping is physiologically NORMAL for new babies.  It is one
> component
> of the "4th trimester" as is frequent breastfeeding, rhythmic white
> noise,
> and calming motion.  Swaddling is very similar to the tight embrace
> they
> experience for many weeks before birth.  In fact, in many ways the
> world is
> "too big" for our new babies.  Thant's why all native cultures
> around the
> world "swaddle" their babies for several months (depending on the
> climate,
> some wrap in blankets and others in confining slings...and of
> course, we all
> "swaddle" babies with our arms when we hold them).

It seems to me that these two practices, wrapping tightly in a blanket
and holding snugly in a sling or in arms, are very distinct.  Whereas a
baby swaddled in a tightly wrapped blanket has no contact with another
body, a baby held in sling or in arms has both the benefits of being cozy
and cuddled AND has the benefit of using mom (or dad or sister or
brother) as his "regulator."  As we know from Dr. McKenna, babies who
sleep in close contact with their mothers keeps their breathing in sync,
thus reducing the risk of SIDS.  Sure, a swaddled baby may startle less
and be less likely to be put to sleep on his stomach, but he might also
be likely to be put into a crib far away from his parents because "he's
such a good sleeper."  I find that to be worrisome.

I also tend to think that most of the native cultures of which you speak
actually carry and hold their babies rather than swaddling them in the
sense we're familiar with.


>
> Help with sleeping has become especially pertinent to new parents
> since the
> introduction of the very important "Back to Sleep" campaign.  Babies
> tend to
> wake more frequently when they are on the back (they startle more
> and miss
> the soothing tummy touching provided by the prone position).
> Swaddled
> babies sleeping on the back, however, are still treated to the cozy
> and
> soothing feel of having their tummies embraced.  Also, the swaddling
> helps
> to inhibit their waking because of accidental startling...all the
> while,
> still receiving the benefit of the back position.

I tend to think that the "Back to Sleep" campaign has ignored possibly
the greatest risk of dying from SIDS to babies--you guess it:  NOT
BREASTFEEDING.  Second only to NOT CO-SLEEPING.

>
> Of course, a mother always has the choice of nursing her baby
> through the
> night.  In one well studied culture, the Kung San in Botswana, moms
> traditionally nurse their babies through the night (on average 4
> times an
> hour).
>
> It's a parent's choice.  But, moms who are driving INTO stop signs
> instead
> of just halting at them, or are just plain exhausted, should be
> given the
> tools to help them get more sleep.
>

I'm just flabbergasted by this statement.  You say, of course a mother
always has the choice of nursing her baby through the night, but go on to
make it sound like she'll be so incredibly sleep deprived as to be a
menace to society?  I hope that mothers you come in contact with don't
infer your clear disapproval of night nursing.  In my experience in
helping mothers, I've *never* met a baby who nursed 4 times an hour
through the night.  Yes, some babies nurse very frequently, but even
these seem to be the exception rather than the rule.  Again, look at
McKenna's research.  He discusses how the sleep cycles of mom-baby duos
are in sync during the night, thus minimizing any exhaustion on the part
of the mother.  And to the contrary, moms who know that baby is well and
have the comfort of having him right next to her often report sleeping
far more restfully than those who keep "anticipating" the next time she's
going to have to get out of bed, walk down the hall, go fix a bottle (or
even BF for that matter), re-swaddle the baby (in your example), and
sneak him back to bed without waking him up.  Not to mention getting
yourself back to sleep after becoming so awakened...  Even if that
happened just once a night it would be far more disruptive to the sleep
pattern than simply anticipating a baby who is ready to nurse and rolling
over and offering the breast three or four times (or arguably more times)
during the night.

And frankly, nursing during the day to "make up for" not nursing during
the night doesn't always cut it.  Women's bodies produce more prolactin
at night, which is more evidence that we're biologically destined to
nurse at night just as babies are.  And once an infant reaches an age of
distractibility, he might be too busy to nurse during the day very
frequently, and without the benefit of night nursing would surely be said
to be "weaning himself."

Gina Gerboth, LLLL--clearly not a successful lurker

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html