No need for tummy time?

[Jennifer13]

I read an interesting article here http://www.regardingbaby.org/2010/09...ary/?wpmp_tp=1 on whether tummy time is a good idea or not.

I did tummy time for DD1 but don't for DD2 because she's a tummy sleeper and that's how she naps during the day.

I do like the notion of not forcing motor skills they don't already have and we avoid all of the toys that get them to jump, sit and stand up before they can do it themselves.

What does everyone else think about this extending to tummy time as well?

[toomanyshoes]

I'm pretty sure something similar was posted a year or so ago and I still feel the same way.

Choosing to place them on their tummy is no different to choosing to place them on their back, who decided one was more natural than the other? Maybe throw them up in the air and see which side they land on for true natural selection?

But I do agree there is no need to force milestones with children/babies.

[Jellyfish]

I have heard this before and it makes sense but I do think babies have the ability to communicate whether they are comfortable or not which is what I try to follow. I would like to read more about the exact differences between how the body is supported when on back compared to front, there are babies that seem very comfortable on their front so that sparks my curiosity about how it was determined that back was the right way! Currently DD2 usually begins sleeping on her back but through the night seems to complain till she settles quickly on her tummy, I know I get uncomfortable staying in the same position for extended periods so this is why I have tried to follow her cues on how she would like to be but am very keen to understand better how this might be inaccurate logic on my part. DD2 (and DD1 back when she was little) doesn't spend much time out of my arms whilst awake so am also wondering how this might relate to baby wearing/carrying? What would be the most 'natural' position in that sort of environment? What about the incline in carseats?

It is very interesting although I will continue to listen to my baby and the instinct from that, I am motivated to read some more. Both my babies have had what I consider abnormal head strength straight from the womb (no wobbly head, it is almost creepy) so that might be influencing my thoughts somewhat. DD2 especially is just a very big and strong baby, she has been rolling for a while so the tummy time thing is a bit mute for us now but would still love to know more. I would never keep a baby in a position they were actively protesting and don't think tummy time should be 'forced'.

[meow]

Maybe throw them up in the air and see which side they land on for true natural selection?

Perfect!!

I rarely put my babies on their tummies. I never did "tummy time" where I consciously put them there and I never left them on their tummies if they weren't liking it. I usually laid them down on their backs or else I was holding them (often upright in a sling or lying on their tummy on my chest). They both developed motor skills on the early side of normal.

[Rowellen]

Choosing to place them on their tummy is no different to choosing to place them on their back, who decided one was more natural than the other?

I agree with this. I think there is a difference between forcing milestones & encouraging muscle development.

[Jennifer13]

What about the points on babies who are too little to see, move, or lift their heads while on their tummies? I agree it's hardly breaking news and this on its own probably doesn't cause issues, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

[Cranky Kitten]

I think be guided by what they prefer - a lot of babies hate being on their tummy and will cry until you move them or pick them up. Others love it. My DS hated it for about the first 6 weeks or so, so tummy time consisted of laying on my chest as I semi-reclined - he'd either snuggle in for a cuddle or would lift his head to look at me, his choice. By a bit over 2 months he was rolling to his side when put on his back, so I'd help him to his tummy as he seemed to enjoy it. Now he spends most of his day on his tummy because he rolls there himself. And then proceeds to grind along the carpet trying really hard to crawl...

[toomanyshoes]

Forcing a baby to do tummy time for the sake of a milestone isn't my thing but placing them on their tummy for comfort and/or variety (if they are happy to do so) I don't have an issue with and can't see it being any different to placing the on their backs, not being able to see/move is the same for being on their back.

I think the bigger picture is not forcing babies to do things they are unhappy with but if they are happy I don't see how it can be a bad thing?

[Dr. Tal]

I never really thought about it much. I know I was told that I should give DS tummy time, but the midwives at the clinic I went to also said that laying huim on his tummy on my tummy was classed as tummy time. I did that a lot, sort of semi reclined in my reclining rocker and would lie DS on my chest and rock with him. But he had really bizarre head control from really early on. He never had a floppy head and was able to lift his head up and look at me pretty much from day one. I did put him on his tummy on the floor from time to time, but only after he was able to hold his head up on his own, and I'd generally lie on the floor with him and interact with him. I never left him on his own to just lie there bored. As soon as he started to fuss or look the least bit uncomfortable I'd pick him up.

I agree that you shouldn't force things on babies. That if they cry or are clearly distressed or unhappy by what is going on that you should stop 'it'. Regardless of what 'it' is. I also don't agree with using walkers or things that unnaturally allow your baby to move before they are able.

But there were part of the article that seemed a bit contradictory. As in you should never place a baby in a position it is unable to get into on it’s own. Well given that babies typically can't move themselves at all, in my mind they are incapable of getting into ANY position. Tummy, back…whatever. So ANY position that you as a parent put them in, including holding them, would technically be classed as unnatural by her description,, wouldn't it?

[Taurean]

Thanks for posting this I was feeling a bit guilty about DD2's lack of tummy time. It's so difficult cause she's not a fan, suffers from reflux (so often just spews) and finding the time for it is just difficult - as ridiculous as that sounds!

My MCHN was actually great about it last visit and said laying DD2 against our tummies throughout the day, which she loves, is sufficient. The MCHN was so understanding and said to just give it a go if time permitted and DD was happy to do it.

My theory is DD2's neck strength is amazing and has been since birth so she doesn't need much help in that department and if tummy time will help her crawl early, then I'm certainly not interested! I learnt from DD1 the hard way - a less mobile baby is a lot easier to look after!

[wysiwyg]

I think the prescription of "Tummy Time" has come about due to babies now needing to sleep on backs due to SIDS and also due to some parenting regimes (there was one on that UK show where you interact very little with the baby) where babies were just in their cots, bassinets, floor etc on their backs all the time and held for minimal periods. Really I think it means just not on their back all the time (preventing head flattening as well as giving muscle strengthening) - and all the baby wearing, holding on chest, across knees for easing wind, along the forearm when really little are all "Tummy Time". Of course like most things the "Tummy Time" have been commercialized as well with lots of toys and gadgets promoting that they are for Tummy Time.

[~Kim~]

Funny, I remember reading something similar when DD1 was tiny. She hated it so I didn't worry. Same with DS. They could both hold their heads up from birth. DD2 was/is a truly floppy baby and she really doesn't mind (and prefers to sleep on her belly too), so I've been letting her watch the bigger kids on her tummy. Her neck strength is really improving. We move her when she cracks is, so yep....I guess all that rambling was to say I do agree and I don't.
Not sure what using a car seat judiciously means though...

[onthefly]

My personal theory is that that this was recommended as a (possibly unconscious) means to combat the "lying down baby" syndrome, where some babies may otherwise be left to lie in their prams or cots, without being moved around. This movement would come naturally if you hold/wear your baby etc.

[Heaven]

I never really did it. I mean, they did get tummy time, but I never did it on purpose thinking 'they better have some tummy time now' iykwim. I just put them down how I wanted if they were comfortable but mostly I was holding onto them anyway.

[zilly]

i was under the impression that holding their neck up was a natural reflex so it should be encouraged. but also agree lying on your chest and other positions help towards it too