(Untitled)

[mdf356]

Back in the 1950s no one put their kid to sleep on his/her back. It's not really a natural position. One indication is that the brown faton babies is mostly on their back; i.e. the place where they would otherwise be radiating heat. And my personal observation with my own kids is that babies sleep less deeply on their back. In fact, there's

Comments

[utlawgirl]

Hmmm... interesting thoughts. I know at least one couple who put their baby on their belly to sleep regularly because that was the only way any of them were getting any sleep. Personally, I'll put the new little one on her back from the start, because it's clear how much SIDS has been reduced just by making such a small change, but I am open-minded if we have serious sleep issues down the line.

[goulo]

I'd never even heard about this whole debate/issue. But then I'm not a parent. :)

Reading the comments at the linked article, I like the one which points out:
I think this is an interesting debate because as I recall, there were more risk factors for SIDS than just stomach sleeping. Smoking parents, blankets and toys in the crib, and other things were all suspected of having an effect on the SIDS rate.

I.e. are people invalidly assuming that sleeping on the stomach in and of itself doubles the risk of SIDS? Evidently reducing other factors has also played a role.

And even if it does, you raise a good point that there may be a trade-off here, if the "safer" sleep on the back causes lower quality sleep with long term consequences. Interesting indeed.

[rehana]

Maybe also obesity--there seems to be pretty solid evidence that sleep quality affects weight, though I don't know about long term.

[rehana]

You might like this talk. I know you'll at least partly agree.