PediaCast 118 * Listener Rants And Raves * 347-404-5437

Posted by Dr Mike on Mar 31 2008

5 Responses to “PediaCast 118 * Listener Rants And Raves * 347-404-5437”

1. on 04 Apr 2008 at 3:41 pm 1 Shana said …

   
   

   This was GREAT!
   Karen was a wonderful addition. I liked hearing the interaction between the two of you. You know how context and tone can be difficult to communicate through email? I think a lot of the humorously made sarcastic comments in previous shows haven’t made it across (to me) because the second person was missing to help fill in the context.

   I am very sorry for the allegations that I made in the heat of anger. It was unfair to refer to Dr. Mike as arrogant and presumptious. I should not have let my emotional reaction cloud my better judgement, and it was especially not cool for me to attack on a personal level.

   This was a really, really, REALLY great show. I will (of course) keep listening.

2. on 06 Apr 2008 at 7:04 pm 2 Kristin said …

   
   

   I have only recently started listening to PediaCast, at the recommendation of the Manic Mommies. I really loved this episode, as it showed what a team Karen and Dr. Mike are. I have listened to others, and while I may not agree with everything he says, Dr. Mike is entitled to his opinion. As a dad and Dr, his perspective is valuable. I appreciate it and let’s face it, it is a free country, where we can speak our minds. Thank goodness. This is a great one, just another look at critical issues for most parents (and those who aren’t parents but need to be aware). Thanks so much and keep it up!

3. on 29 Apr 2008 at 12:45 am 3 Susan said …

   
   

   Best episode to date! I’ve been a subscriber ever since you were on the Manic Mommies. Although I appreciate the information in your typical episodes, this one was light and humorous. I would love it if you and Karen did a show together regularly.

4. on 13 Jun 2008 at 12:54 am 4 Tony said …

   
   

   Regarding whether Dr. Sears said that letting a baby cry it out leads to decreased oxygen. Yes. It’s based on research. Here is the excerpt from Dr. Sears’ website:

   Crying isn’t “good for baby’s lungs.” One of the most ridiculous pieces of medical folklore is the dictum: “Let baby cry, it’s good for his lungs.” In the late 1970’s, research showed that babies who were left to cry had heart rates that reached worrisome levels, and lowered oxygen levels in their blood. When these infants’ cries were soothed, their cardiovascular system rapidly returned to normal, showing how quickly babies recognize the status of well being on a physiologic level. When a baby’s cries are not soothed, he remains in physiologic as well as psychological distress.

   The erroneous belief about the healthfulness of crying survives even today in one of the scales of the Apgar score, a sort of test that physicians use to rapidly assess a newborn’s condition in the first few minutes after birth. Babies get an extra two points for “crying lustily.” I remember pondering this concept back in the mid 1970’s when I was the director of a newborn nursery in a university hospital, even before fathering a high-need baby had turned me into an opponent of crying it out. It seemed to me that awarding points for crying made no sense physiologically. The newborn who was in the state of quiet alertness, breathing normally, and actually pinker than the crying infant lost points on the Apgar score. It still amazes me that the most intriguing of all human sounds—the infant’s cry—is still so misunderstood.

   And further research regarding the cry it out method, also from Dr. Sears’ website:

   What cry research tells us. Researchers Sylvia Bell and Mary Ainsworth performed studies in the 1970’s that should have put the spoiling theory on the shelf to spoil forever. (It is interesting that up to that time and even to this day, the infant development writers that preached the cry-it-out advice were nearly always male. It took female researchers to begin to set things straight.) These researchers studied two groups of mother-infant pairs. Group 1 mothers gave a prompt and nurturant response to their infant’s cries. Group 2 mothers were more restrained in their response. They found that children in Group 1 whose mothers had given an early and more nurturant response were less likely to use crying as a means of communication at one year of age. These children seemed more securely attached to their mothers and had developed better communicative skills, becoming less whiny and manipulative.

   Up until that time parents had been led to believe that if they picked up their baby every time she cried she would never learn to settle herself and would become more demanding. Bell and Ainsworth’s research showed the opposite. Babies who developed a secure attachment and had their cues responded to in a prompt and nurturing way became less clingy and demanding. More studies were done to shoot down the spoiling theory, showing that babies whose cries were not promptly responded to begin to cry more, longer, and in a more disturbing way. In one study comparing two groups of crying babies, one group of infants received an immediate, nurturant response to their cries, while the other group was left to cry-it-out. The babies whose cries were sensitively attended to cried seventy percent less. The babies in the cry-it-out group, on the other hand, did not decrease their crying. In essence, crying research has shown that babies whose cries were listened and responded to learned to “cry better”; the infants who were the product of a more restrained style of parenting learned to “cry harder.” It is interesting that the studies revealed differences not only in how the babies communicated with the parents based on the response they got to their cries, but there were also differences in the mothers, too. Studies showed that mothers who gave a more restrained and less nurturant response gradually became more insensitive to their baby’s cries, and this insensitivity carried over to other aspects of their parent-child relationship. Research showed that leaving baby to cry-it- out spoils the whole family.

   Hope this evidence helps to change your opinion.

5. on 29 Jun 2008 at 10:38 am 5 Tony said …

   
   

   Regarding Sarcasm…

   A couple of definitions found from Webster and American Heritage Dictionary:

   1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
   2. A sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
   3. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

   Hmmmmmmmmm……

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website