One of our most popular series from the archives is Baby Essentials That Aren’t by Heather Dunham and Jennifer Lance. We’ve compiled them all here so you have the definitive full list to help simplify baby care.

The Full List of Baby Essentials That Aren’t

1. Cribs
2. Infant Car Seats
3. Strollers
4. Diapers
5. Baby Bathtubs
6. Brain Boosters
7. Baby Food
8. Swim Diapers
9. Changing tables

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 1: Cribs

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“Let’s start this series off with a bang, and tear down that ubiquitous piece of baby furniture, a nursery just isn’t a nursery without one:

Non-Essential #1: The Crib

Certainly the largest, and often the most expensive piece of “essential” baby equipment, a crib is something many of us do just fine without, thank you very much.  While it is still the best option for some, we must not simply take it as a given that it should be the default choice for everybody.

The entire basic idea of an infant sleeping isolated in a crib in their own bedroom is a relatively modern one, and quite limited to western culture.  And yet it is so entrenched in our collective consciousness, that it can be very difficult to conceive of doing things any other way.

One Alternative: Co-Sleeping

Co-sleeping is one obvious “natural” alternative.  It allows for easier breastfeeding, better sleep for parents and infants, reassurance that your baby is right there for you to watch over and protect, and possibly even decreases the risk of SIDS.  It has been practiced the world over for all of human history and continues to be the norm for up to 90% of the world’s population.

If you like the idea of co-sleeping but are hesitant because you’ve heard the negative propaganda against it, consider this:  Thousands of babies die each year in cribs (from SIDS or from crib-related accidents), and a few dozen babies die annually while “co-sleeping”.  Even when we account for the possibility that babies sleep in cribs more often than in family beds, these numbers are still striking.  Despite this, we’re not told to stop using cribs; authorities respond with extensive “crib safety” checklists and assurances that cribs are absolutely the only safe place for babies to sleep.   They do not provide us with an equivalent “safe co-sleeping” checklist, however.  We are told to stop co-sleeping completely, with sweeping and sensationalistic warnings that co-sleeping is always dangerous and should never, never, ever ever ever be done.  Did we mention… ever??

This mentality is actually more dangerous, since a great many parents end up bringing their babies to bed with them, at least occasionally, out of desperation, exhausted.  They never planned or wanted to, believing what they had heard about the dangers, and never having learned the safety precautions (one of which is, do not co-sleep when exhausted).  Not only do they end up feeling guilty, but they could unintentionally create an unsafe environment.  Our modern adult beds and typical sleeping arrangements are, in fact, not designed with infant safety in mind.  So it is of vital importance to spread awareness of co-sleeping safety, rather than ignorance and fear.

In May 1999, the Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC] released a warning against cosleeping or putting babies to sleep on adult beds that was based on a study of death reports of children under the age of two who had died from 1980 to 1997. Among the 2,178 deaths by unintentional strangulation in the Commission’s study were 180 young children who had died from being overlain on a sofa or bed. In another analysis of CPSC data it was found that of 515 deaths in an adult bed, 121 of these were the result of overlying and 394 children died as a result of entrapment in the structure of the bed (Heinig, 2000). The CPSC statistics resulted in a media frenzy discouraging cosleeping which, instead of educating the public on how to share sleep safely, chose to alarm parents. Neither media announcement mentioned the 2,700 infants that died in the final year of that study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome [SIDS], formerly called “crib death”; the vast majority of those infants died alone in their cribs (Seabrook, 1999).   (2001 Tami E. Breazeal)

Another Alternative: The Floor Bed

Even if co-sleeping isn’t right for you (and it certainly isn’t right for every family), you can still question the need to keep your baby in what is essentially an elevated cage.  Babies are just as well off, in fact, on a simple mattress on the floor.  The bars which are there for ‘safety’ are only necessary because the baby is so high up.  And they’re only that high up in the first place as a convenience to parents, so we don’t have to bend over to put our babies in.

A regular mattress on the floor provides several advantages.  You are not limited to standing beside the crib, patting your fussy baby’s back.  You can lie down with your baby, whether just staying with them or nursing them to sleep while side-lying, and easily slip away after they’ve drifted off.  Or perhaps you would prefer to sit on the mattress to nurse them to sleep, then gently lay them down – this is far  easier than having to stand up from your chair, walk over to the crib, and reach baby down to the crib mattress (all without waking him!!) And of course, being on the floor already, there is no danger of injury from either falling off,  or entrapment within the bars.

From the floor mattress, baby has better view of her entire room, not just the ceiling and bars, and thus has more visual stimulation.  Many believe that babies are actually calmer and less stressed.  As baby becomes a toddler, it is greatly to their advantage to have the freedom be able to get in and out of their beds by their own will, rather than experiencing the powerlessness of having to cry and wait for an adult to respond.  This promotes independence and self-fulfillment and is notably endorsed by the philosophies of child-rights and development pioneer, Dr. Maria Montessori.

If you do choose a mattress on the floor, the usual safety checklists still apply, of course.  No pillows, blankets, toys, etc, that you would not have in a family bed or in a crib, and ensure that entrapment between the mattress and a wall is not a possibility.  If you would like something a little nicer than just a mattress, you can build your own, or purchase a ready-made floor bed.

Both co-sleeping and floor beds are solutions that use fewer resources, cost less money, and quite probably result in happier, more secure children (and thus, eventually, adults).  So dare to think outside the baby cage box: question the crib!

Be sure to check out Part 2: Infant Car Seats, Part 3: Strollers, Part 4: Diapers, Part 5: Baby Bathtubs, Part 6: Baby Brain Boosters, and Part 7: Baby Food.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo: Valentina Powers under creative commons.

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 2: Infant Car Seats

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“

In Part 1, we questioned the crib.   This week, Part 2 bemoans the bucket.

 

Non-Essential #2: The Infant Car Seat, or “Carrier”

Let me first be perfectly clear:  I am not suggesting that we don’t need car seats.  Obviously they are essential for safety when riding in motor vehicles.  However, we can get by just fine without the “bucket” infant car seats, those only for use up to about 22 pounds, and which are frequently used as baby carriers.

Very tiny babies with low birthweight, such as preemies, require special care.  This article does not apply to them and is only intended for babies of average size.

The reported advantages of the infant seats are that they fit small infants better than convertible seats, that it is more convenient to buckle baby into the seat while indoors then carry it out to the car, and that it is better to take a sleeping baby from the car by keeping him in the seat rather than risk waking him.

Best Fit for Infants?

While in general, it is true that infant carseats do fit newborns better than many convertible carseats, more and more convertible seats these days are just as well-designed to fit small infants.  Two excellent newer examples are the Radian 80, and the TrueFit, which both come with their own removable infant inserts.  There is also the Snuzzler, a safety-tested separate infant insert which can be used in any car seat for comfort and support.  (Note: Some states may have regulations against using non-original inserts, please check before using.)

When an infant outgrows their bucket carseat — usually before their first birthday — you will need to purchase a convertible carseat anyway.  All too often, parents misunderstand and believe that just because their babies have outgrown their infant seat, they are ready to go straight to a forward-facing carseat.  In fact, babies must remain rear-facing until they are at least 20 pounds and one year old, and this is only a bare legal minimum.  It is much safer to keep your child rear-facing as long as possible, until they reach the maximum limit of their particular seats.  For the TrueFit, for example, the rear-facing limit is 35 pounds, which will last most children until they are three years old.

Since you will need a good convertible seat anyway, it is obviously much more economical to just use this seat from the beginning, rather than spend an additional $70-$300 on a seat which will get less than one year of use.  You will also be left with a large chunk of plastic to dispose of, since it is not recommended to buy seats secondhand.

Seats such as the Radian and TrueFit are a more expensive investment in the beginning, but since they can be used as a 5-point harness seat up to 65 pounds, it is much cheaper than buying multiple seats for different weight and age ranges.

Getting In, Getting Out

It certainly is convenient to be able to strap baby in while indoors, and carry them out to the car ready to go, rather than wrestling with the straps while hunched in your back seat, especially in the cold of winter.

However, one fact to consider is that you will have to learn how to get your child to (and into) the car once they’ve outgrown the bucket seat anyway.  Why not get used to it while they are small, easy to handle and (mostly) passive, rather than after they’ve turned into opinionated, feisty – not to mention strong – toddlers?

Is it best to let sleeping babies lie?  Not necessarily, according to some research.  Infants who are left to sleep in their car seat, even when brought indoors, risk collapse of their airway, with potentially deadly results.

In my experience, transferring a sleeping baby from the car to a sling results in only minimal disruption, with the baby quickly returning back to sleep once comfortably nestled in the sling.  Doing this in the winter took some practice – but once again, you will need to learn to deal with a sleeping toddler anyway when they are older and have outgrown the bucket.  By the time she was old enough to struggle or resist, I was proficient and transfers went smoothly.

Use as Carriers

Using bucket carseats to get your baby in and out of the car easily, can lead to the temptation to lug your precious infant around this way all the time.  From the house to the car, from the car to the store or the park, lock the seat into the travel system stroller base, back to the car and home again — when do these babies get held? We know that human touch is essential to the development of healthy children, so it is nonsensical to keep them isolated for extended periods in plastic carriers simply for the sake of “convenience.”

Besides lack of human physical touch, babies carried in carseats generally experience less interaction with their parents and their environment.  I have observed, all too often, families simply leaving their babies — even when awake — ignored in their carseats on the floor, while the adults talk among themselves.  Once a baby is safely locked away in their plastic bucket, it is too commonly treated like just another piece of luggage to be toted about, rather than a precious and valued human life.

Parents using infant carseats as carriers are also prone to developing dangerous habits, such as setting the seat on a table or other high surface, on soft surfaces where they can tip, or in grocery carts (risk of injury from falls, and parents leaving cart and baby unattended).  Often there is a false sense of security, and they are handled quite roughly and carelessly.  In fact, the handles on carseats are not tested as rigorously as the seats themselves and are frequently faulty, with disastrous consequences.  There have been thousands of injuries — and product recalls — due to faulty handles releasing, dropping babies onto the floor.  In 2006, 14,000 infants were injured in car seat carriers from non-motor vehicle accidents.

And of course, as a baby carrier, a carseat is heavy, cumbersome, and awkward — unlike your baby, who is light and portable.  Infant carseats weigh, on average, between 7 and 10 pounds.  That’s like hefting a large bag of potatoes along with your baby.

Carrying your baby in a sling — or, if all else fails, in your arms — is only as heavy as the baby.  A good sling will further distribute this weight across your body, so that your baby can seem almost weightless – plus, your hands are free.

Important note: if you cannot get a convertible seat to fit your car with a proper recline for a newborn, then it is better to use an infant seat.  However, you will still need to find a convertible seat which fits rear-facing when your baby outgrows the infant seat.

Be sure to check out Part 3: Strollers, Part 4: Diapers, Part 5: Baby Bathtubs, Part 6: Baby Brain Boosters, and Part 7: Baby Food.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo: [177] under Creative Commons

Photo credit: MRBECK via Foter.com / CC BY-ND

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 3: Strollers

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“

In Part 1, we questioned the crib.   Part 2 bemoaned the bucket.  This week, let’s scrutinize the stroller.

Non-Essential #3: The Stroller

Like our other non-essentials so far, strollers certainly have their place and usefulness.  Even some of the most ardent (dare I say militant) babywearers will admit to using a stroller once in awhile.  But it’s certainly possible to get by without one, and in most cases even preferable.

The obvious alternative is a sling or other babywearing carrier.  I personally do not recommend Baby Bjorn-style carriers, due to the issues with spinal stress and compression and hip dysplasia.  Basically, babies are carried dangling by their crotch — which can hardly be comfortable (imagine it for yourself!), even if the actual occurrence of spondylolisthesis is fairly rare.  There are many carriers available (such as the Ergo or mei tais) that have the same advantages of a Bjorn-style carrier, but keep the baby in a more comfortable and healthy “frog-legged” or sitting position — the position older babies will naturally take when being carried on their mother’s hip — and many consider these to be more comfortable for both baby and mom.  According to some, babies with hip dysplasia should never use a Bjorn-style carrier, as it can aggravate the condition, and in fact the “frog-legged” position supported by other carriers is used for treatment of dysplasia.

All that being said, being worn in a Bjorn is still better than not being worn at all.  But if you or your baby find your Bjorn uncomfortable, do look into the alternatives!

Stroller Stress

So, why should we question pushing baby in a stroller?  Perhaps Frank Njenga, a child psychologist in Nairobi, Kenya (where mothers have been very slow to adopt the “modern” convenience of the stroller), said it best, when he said “The pram is the ultimate in pushing the baby away from you.”

Want some more reasons?  Here are just a few.  Okay, more than just a few.

• Strollers are large, heavy, and bulky.  Newborn babies are none of those things.  A baby in a sling weighs no more than the baby.
• Strollers are often hard to fit into your car, and need storage space at home as well.  Many slings will fold up into your purse.
• If you frequently use public transportation such as transit buses, you will find the sling much easier to take on board, and much more secure on a bumpy ride!
• How often have you seen parents struggling to push an empty stroller while carrying a fussy infant, or with their too-active-to-sit toddler walking alongside it instead?  An empty sling is no additional encumbrance.
• Obviously, your hands are free!  You might not even realize the difference this makes until you experience it.  This is especially handy when you have older children to deal with as well.  Additionally, you never have to worry about the safety issue of a stroller rolling away from you when you forgot to set the brakes.
• Slings are easier to lift over curbs, go through turnstiles, maneuver through heavy entrance doors, climb up hills, and carry up stairs.  You can even ride the escalator — which is very dangerous with a stroller!
• Strollers are very difficult to push through snow or grass or along hiking trails.  Even “all-terrain” strollers have their limits.  Slings are only limited by where your own feet can take you.
• Have you ever tried to navigate in narrow store aisles with a stroller?  How about crowded places like shopping malls?  Not only are you more maneuverable with a sling, but you don’t have to worry about running over anyone’s feet.  You will also feel more secure in a heavy crowd with your baby safely snuggled next to you, rather than at arm’s length at risk of being bumped and jostled.
• There are many places where you simply cannot take a stroller, such as theme park shows (which often feature complimentary “stroller parking” outside).  Since you have to carry your baby into those areas anyway, why not do so more comfortably, and not worry about having to park your stroller in the first place?
• Strollers are heavily manufactured items, usually made in China, with toxic plastics and who-knows-with-what-chemical-treated fabrics.  Slings are more commonly locally-made, or European, and organic choices are numerous.
• Newborn infants have a very short range of vision.  When they are pushed in a stroller, they are too far away and cannot see you.  As far as they know, you no longer exist.
• If your baby starts fussing in the stroller, you have to stop, bend down, possibly turn around, figure out what the problem is, and fix it, before you’re able to continue on.  If your baby is in a sling — well, first of all, he’s less likely to fuss in the first place — but you can soothe him much more easily, often without even stopping.
• When wearing your baby, you are more in tune with her moods and her needs, and you will naturally interact with her more often and more easily than if she were in a stroller.
• You can nurse discreetly while baby is in the sling.  Just try doing that in a stroller!
• If your baby falls asleep while out for a walk, it is much easier when he is in a sling.  You can either just keep him in the sling when you get home, or (depending on the type of sling) lay him down while slipping yourself out of the sling.
• Babies who spend too much time on their backs in cribs, strollers, and car seat carriers are at risk of “flat head” syndrome.
• Excessive use of strollers, especially as babies become toddlers and even older, may be partly involved in the growing childhood obesity epidemic.
• Let’s not neglect the effect strollers have on other people, outside of mom and baby.  Strollers greatly increase congestion in already-crowded areas, taking up more than twice the ‘floor space’ of a parent with their babe in a sling; empty strollers outside shops block pedestrian traffic; and when numerous, are commonly regarded as a nuisance.
• Babies who are worn cry less.  This reduces stress hormones, and increases learning capacity: less time and energy spent crying = more time in the “quiet alert” state, where they are primed to absorb information.
• Worn babies experience life at “eye level”, and are more actively engaged in their surroundings, observing you and others.  Babies in strollers, particularly young infants, are frequently completely covered up, totally deprived of any sensory stimulation and interaction with the world.

In other words, babywearing grants you much greater freedom than being shackled to a “travel system.” And I have not even addressed the benefits of babywearing around the house, or how it enhances vestibular development, reduces the chances of SIDS, and even enhances digestion.

Finding the Right Sling

One final note about slings.  There are many different styles of baby carriers with literally hundreds of variations.  If you have found that a particular type did not work out for you, look into some others.  Whether your baby prefers to be upright, lying down, on your back, facing forward, or whether you are a petite or a plus-sized momma, there is a sling that’s right for you.  Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to find the help you need, since babywearing is still a bit of a “fringe” activity.  I know of many moms who excitedly tried a particular sling, found it uncomfortable, or insecure, or too difficult, or their baby hated it — and so they gave up on the whole idea completely.  I think this is comparable to breastfeeding support in our society.  Many moms try breastfeeding with the best of intentions, but do not have the necessary support to get them through problems that arise, or even had bad advice to begin with.  So it is with slings.

For more information and reviews on different types of slings, how to decide what’s best for you and your baby, and help with particular issues you might have, visit The Baby Wearer; and keep an eye out for a future post from me describing and comparing the types of slings commonly available today.

Be sure to check out Part 4: Diapers, Part 5: Baby Bathtubs, Part 6: Baby Brain Boosters and Part 7: Baby Food.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo: Joe Shlabotnik under Creative Commons

 Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 4: Diapers

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“

In Part 1, we questioned the crib.   Part 2 bemoaned the bucket.  Part 3 scrutinized the stroller.  This week, let’s ditch the diapers!

Non-Essential #4: Diapers

Okay, okay, you’ll probably need SOME diapers.  But you don’t need as many as the diaper manufacturers will try to tell you.  And sell you.  There are many ways to reduce — and even completely eliminate (heehee) — your dependence on diapers.

Step One: Go Cloth

The first step to reducing your diaper use is to toss the disposables and use cloth diapers.  Not only will this reduce the environmental impact, but cloth-diapered babies tend to potty-learn younger than their sposie-clad kin.  Contrary to manufacturers’ praise of “dryness”, keeping babies aware of the “wetness” of their diapers encourages earlier training.  What’s the incentive to stop peeing in your pants if there is no down side – you don’t have to interrupt what you’re doing and you don’t feel icky afterwards.  It’s little wonder that the average age of potty-learning has increased so much since the advent of disposable diapers.

Not to mention the toxic ingredients found in many brands of disposable diapers.

While you’re at it, toss your disposable wipes.  Specialty cloth wipes, soft facecloths, or just cut-up flannel squares with a bit of water do the job just as well, without the nasty chemicals and staying out of the landfills.

Step Two: Introduce the Potty Early

You can introduce the potty to your baby at any age, even right from birth.  Getting them used to the idea of the potty from the beginning reduces fears and frustrations later on, rather than suddenly expecting them to completely alter where they eliminate come potty-training time.  In other words, they won’t become exclusively “diaper-trained”, and will understand that there is more than one “correct” place to pee and poo.

Besides the potty, you can also hold your baby in “classic position” (facing away from you in a supported squat position, your hands under their knees and thighs, resting against you) over a sink or toilet.  Older babies enjoy standing up in the bathtub to pee!

For best success, try pottying right after your baby wakes up from a nap or after a feeding — you’ll be surprised how often you’ll catch a pee that way!  Babies also frequently pee during diaper changes, so that’s another great time to try it.  Remember that every pee caught — even if just by random chance — is a diaper saved.

Bare bottom time is also very beneficial to all babies.  It’s good for the skin, especially if diaper rash is a problem.  It reduces their tendency (especially as they get older) to ‘explore’ inside their diapers — especially dirty diapers — as they have ample opportunity to explore their bodies while diaper-free.  And it will give you insight into any elimination signals they might have, enabling you to increase your successful pottying — further reducing diaper usage!

Step Three: Try it Full Time

Going completely diaper-free is not for everyone, but it’s a fascinating experience for those who do engage in it.   This is, of course, how it was always done before diapers were commonplace, and is still done this way in many societies around the world; by some estimates, 85% of babies in the world do not wear diapers.  Frequently called Elimination Communication in modern western usage, it’s an eye-opening revelation of the ignored and neglected abilities and awareness of infants and toddlers.

Full-time EC can save you hundreds of dollars, even if you use cloth for back-up.  For instance, when our daughter was 5 months old, we switched completely to trim, cloth training pants instead of diapers, and the dozen-or-so training pants we invested in at that time lasted until we eventually graduated to underwear-only.

If you’re curious to learn more, even just to try it part-time, some great resources are The Diaper-Free Baby, Born Potty-Trained, Tribal Baby, and diaperfreebaby.org.

Fringe Benefits:

There are other benefits to reducing your dependence on diapers besides the obvious cost savings and environmental advantages.  Here are just some of them, read this article for more:

• Diaper Rash is greatly reduced or even completely eliminated.
• Diaper Bags are smaller, lighter, or unnecessary.
• Blowouts are rare, since babies will naturally prefer to poo in the ‘open’ rather than in their pants, when given the opportunity.
• Convenience when out and about: babies can go in any toilet or even outside, rather than having to find a safe place to lie them down to change them.

I’d like to conclude with this quote, from Jen Allbritton, CN, at The Weston A. Price Foundation, as food for thought:

According to Contemporary Pediatrics, over 50 percent of the world’s children are toilet trained between six months and one year of age, and 80 percent by one to two years, with 18 months as the average. This trend was also true in the United States prior to the mid 1950s when disposable diapers were introduced. However it is now only in the US and other “disposable diaper” nations that toilet training is delayed to 36 or 48 months.

Be sure to check out Part 5: Baby Bathtubs, Part 6: Baby Brain Boosters and Part 7: Baby Food.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo: x86x86 under Creative Commons

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 5: Baby Bathtubs

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“

In Part 1, we questioned the crib.   Part 2 bemoaned the bucket.  Part 3 scrutinized the stroller.  Part 4 ditched the diapers.  This week, let’s scrub the tub!

Non-Essential #5: Baby Bathtubs

I’ll admit off the bat that I hemmed and hawed a bit whether to include this item in this series.  Many parents do already understand that’s it’s not really an “essential.”  But since it’s another big hunk of plastic that we can live without, frequently included on “the lists,” and since many parents are not fully aware of the alternatives, I decided to include it.

Convenience or Nuisance?

Supposedly just the right size and shape to safely contain a slippery, squirmy newborn, baby bathtubs always seem convenient.  Until you actually use one.

In my experience, at least (I’ll confess that, full of optimism, I used them — briefly — with both of my babies), they are little to no help in keeping baby in a secure position.  Baby still slides everywhere.

Then when you’re done, it has to be drained, rinsed, dried, and stored somewhere.  And suddenly this unusual shape that seemed so well-designed to hold a baby reveals its big, awkward, bulky, and hard-to-fit-anywhere true colours.  For a 10-minute bath, it’s an awful lot of work… and then your baby is just going to outgrow it within a few months anyway.

Alternatives to Plastic Bathtubs

Newborn babies are so tiny that any biggish bowl can serve just fine for a bath.  Other options would include any bucket you have on hand, and of course your kitchen or bathroom sink.  Anything that holds water can be a bathtub.  Of course, you should only have a small amount of water in there and always keep your hands on your baby, but hopefully I don’t need to remind you of that.

Babies don’t always need “immersion” baths anyway.  Unless you have big dried-on poo messes to deal with, infants don’t really get all that dirty, and many are quite alarmed and disturbed at being placed in any tub of water, especially as newborns.  A simple sponge bath, with baby lying on a towel or simply in your arms, will suffice just fine until they are big and dirty enough to really need more rigorous bathing.  And as for the big dried-on poo messes, if you’ve ditched your diapers, odds are that you won’t be dealing with that particular kind of mess quite as often anyway.

Another wonderful option is to just bring your baby into the bathtub with you.  How often do new mothers lament that they can’t even get enough time away from caring for their newborn to have a shower?  This is the perfect solution.  You get a soothing, luxurious bath, skin-to-skin bonding time with your baby, and a clean little tike as part of the bargain.  Fussy babies frequently become calm and serene when bathing with mommy.

Herbal baths can be beneficial for both mom and baby, helping to heal postpartum wounds as well as the umbilical stump.

As always, there are safety precautions to follow when bathing with your baby – primarily, be sure the temperature is not too hot, and that there is either someone available to hand the baby to when you get out, or you have a safe and easy place to put the baby (remembering that you will be wet and holding a wet baby), such as a bouncy seat, before getting out yourself.  But when you can manage it, the sheer bliss of the experience is one not to be missed.

You Can Be Too Clean

Oftentimes, parents operate under the mistaken assumption that babies need frequent, even daily baths.  But the fact is that they don’t.  Our well-intentioned but over-exuberant ministrations of water, soaps, and lotions, strip away the skin’s natural oils leading to dryness and irritation, and frequently expose your baby’s tender skin to harsh (and, arguably, toxic) ingredients such as sodium lauryl sulfate, preservatives, and artificial fragrances.  Worse still are those soaps that contain anti-bacterial ingredients such as triclosan.  The best treatment for your baby’s skin is generally to leave it alone. If you do use cleaning products once in awhile, make sure sure they are gentle and naturally-based.

Babies are not yet sweaty teenagers, and they are not rambunctious children playing in the mud.  They need occasional spot-cleaning of spit-up and poo, but that’s about it.  As they get older, many babies and toddlers do enjoy baths as part of a relaxing bedtime routine, and that’s fine… but it isn’t strictly necessary from a cleanliness point of view. It may even be in their best interests to let them stay just a little bit dirty.

Be sure to check out Part 6: Baby Brain Boosters and Part 7: Baby Food.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo: Jason DeRusha under Creative Commons

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 6: Baby Brain Boosters

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“

In Part 1, we questioned the crib.   Part 2 bemoaned the bucket.  Part 3 scrutinized the stroller.  Part 4 ditched the diapers.  Part 5 scrubbed the tub.  This week, let’s bust the brain boosters!

Non-Essential #6: Brain Boosters

Edutainment for infants is all the rage these days.  With loaded names like Baby Einstein, Baby Mozart, Baby Genius, and Brainy Baby, they all claim to offer your baby the intellectual enhancements they’ll need to get ahead, to maximize their potential, to succeed in today’s fast-paced and competetive society.

But there is, in fact, no evidence that any of these toys, videos, books, or methodologies actually provide any long-term benefit, and often in fact have quite the opposite effect.

The issues of excessive testing, unrealistic expectations and high-pressure environments in public schools, over-scheduling, parents’ loss of connection with their children and their own parental instincts, parental guilt over lack of quality time, confusion over conflicting messages on child development, the impact of consumerism and profit-driven children’s industries, and how this all relates to the surge in ‘educational enrichment’ for babies is simply far too massive and complex to properly get into within this brief article.  Please, please, please read Much Too Early!, a highly illuminating article by David Elkind, author of The Hurried Child and Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk, for an overview of some of these issues.  Among other things, he explains how knowing the alphabet is not a step towards reading, clarifies the mis-application of the HeadStart program results, outlines the normal intellectual developmental steps of the young child, and reaffirms that education is not a race to be the first to the finish line.

Early Academics: A Distortion of Natural Development

As brain research has led to some understanding about the development of intelligence in young children, including such concepts as “windows” or critical periods and the importance of the first three years, ‘experts’ and educators have jumped on the findings, misinterpreted them, and launched this whole baby brain-building mess.  In this interview, John Bruer explains this history and debunks the myth of the “first three years.”

These myths extend back to in utero.  When studies of fetal heart rate showed that the unborn infant could differentiate between the voice of its mother and an unknown voice, the “Pregaphone” was invented.  This device (supposedly) allows you to read Shakespeare, play Mozart, and otherwise educate your baby while still in the womb.  Of course, your baby hears your voice just fine without this device anyway, so the specific advantage offered by it is rather murky.

Dr. Maria Montessori, in observing young children as they played and learned, observed what indeed appeared to be “sensitive periods” — decades before there was any corroborating brain research — where children appeared to be especially primed to learn certain skills or concepts.  However, rather than this being an opportunity for parents and teachers to feed factoids to the passive child, this was simply how the child was naturally forming itself. In other words, a young child will instinctively seek out the learning experiences that will best suit its development at any particular time.  As long as there is a normal environment to explore, a child will learn to walk, jump, and run, understand spoken language, distinguish and identify colours, textures, and sizes, sing, count, and draw representational figures — incredibly complex ideas, all from its own curiosity and emergent drive to self-create.

Preschoolers and School-Age Children Also Suffer from Misapplied Academics

The pressure for scholastic success, combined with the belief that the best way to achieve this is through in an indoor classroom setting with textbooks and tests — rather than through practical experience and free play — has become so all-encompassing that schools are cutting recess, and the age for beginning institutionalized schooling keeps dropping (despite the failure to provide any evidence that this actually improves success, and much evidence to the contrary).

In North America, the legal age for mandatory school attendance is usually 5 or 6, though in many areas, you will be looked at quite oddly if your child is not in a formal academic preschool by age 3 or 4.  By contrast, many Scandinavian countries do not begin formal schooling until age 7, have longer holidays… and have higher results in literacy and academic achievement.  “One of the most intriguing statistics from international comparisons is the lack of relationship between hours in the classroom and educational achievement.”

If early academics for preschoolers does nothing to improve later school success — and apparently even has the opposite effect entirely — does it not stand to reason that we should utterly refrain from continuing to extend this mistake further and further back into childhood, even into infancy?

Let The Children Play

So what should we do, then, with our babies?  Of course we want the best for them, it’s only natural to want to give them any advantage we possibly can.

First of all, breastfeed. Formula-fed babies score 5-6% lower IQ’s by school age.

Second, wear your baby. Babies who are worn cry less, and spend more time in the “active alert” state — when they are observing and absorbing information.  They also get more adult interaction and a better vantage point for viewing and learning about their world.

But, perhaps most important of all, let them play. And play with them.

In the words of Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, and Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, authors of Einstein Never Used Flashcards: How Our Children Really Learn–and Why They Need to Play More and Memorize Less:

 

Don’t let yourself be taken in by the messages about enhancing your baby’s brain development that appear on flashy product lines. Just as sex is used in advertising to sell products to adults, marketers have figured out that brain development sells to parents. There is no evidence, however, that particular educational programs, methods, or techniques are effective for brain development.

For example, listening to Mozart is not bad for your child. That is, if you like Mozart, there is no harm in playing it and exposing your child to music. But you could just as well sing lullabies, play Simon and Garfunkel, the Indigo Girls, or any other band you like. Music is wonderful. There is no doubt about it. But the evidence from research says that listening to Mozart, Madonna, or Mama Cass will not make your child a math genius or budding architect, or even increase his general intelligence.

… Your child will learn more when you play with him than when you buy him fancy boxes containing self-proclaimed “state-of-the-art” devices with exorbitant claims to build his brain.

(Read a lengthy excerpt from the book)

Golinkoff again:

Parents feel enormous pressure to spend meaningful time with their kids, and of course, everybody wants to do what’s best for their kids. But “play” has become a four-letter word. And so often, parents take “quality play time” to mean “teaching time.” They trade play in for structured activities, educational TV and flash cards. But what I believe makes more sense, and what research indicates, is that children learn through play, and play with parents is the best.

Also remember, while you’re happily playing with your child, that anything can be a toy.  You don’t need a house full of mountains of playthings.  When my son was an infant, one of his favourite toys was the lid from an old bottle of Vaseline.  Possibly not the “greenest” toy ever, but he loved it.  Boxes, sticks, old clothes, pots and pans, brooms, simple wooden blocks, scraps of fabric, spoons, anything that makes noise… You don’t have to spend hundreds of dollars on plastic made-in-China nonsense, or even on high-quality wooden eco-friendly toys.  Just let them explore, and play.

Additional resources:

CBC Radio “The Hurried Infant”: Listen online to the podcasts of this recent 2-part story on the program “Ideas.”

Massive list of articles on the value of play and fallacies regarding early education.

Be sure to check out Part 7: Baby Food.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo credit: smellyknee via Creative Commons

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 7: Baby Food

Open any pregnancy or baby book, and you’ll find that list: the baby essentials, the things you absolutely cannot live without.  While many accessories are easily recognized as frivolous, certain items are truly indispensable: the basic necessities for life with a baby.

Or are they?

In this weekly series, we’ll be looking at several baby essentials that really aren’t.  They may be useful in certain situations, but if money or space is tight, or if you’re just looking to simplify and reduce consumerism and waste, here’s how to get along just fine without these so-called “essentials.“

In Part 1, we questioned the crib.   Part 2 bemoaned the bucket.  Part 3 scrutinized the stroller.  Part 4 ditched the diapers.  Part 5 scrubbed the tub.  Part 6 busted the brain boosters.  This week, we banish the baby food!

Non-Essential #7: Baby Food

By saying you don’t need baby food, I’m not merely saying that you don’t need commercial processed jarred baby foods and cereals.  I’m not just saying you can make your own healthy, organic purees and even grind your own rice.  I’m saying you don’t need it at all.

No purees, no rice, no pablum.  No mashing, no whizzing, no pulverizing.  In short, no spoonfeeding.

It’s. Just. Not. Necessary.

But wait, you say… babies need to learn to eat, right?  Of course you need to feed the baby, don’t you?

Well… no, actually.  Your baby will feed himself.  (Or herself, as the case may be.)

The Case for Baby-Led Solids

Baby-led solids is a simple, practical, logical and natural method of beginning solid foods whereby your baby simply eats real food, by himself, from the beginning.  It is also called “baby-led weaning” or BLW, a term popularized by British health visitor Gill Rapley, whose pioneering work in this area has become the manifesto for parents seeking a more sensible approach to starting solids with their babies.  Note that the term “baby-led weaning” uses the British meaning of the term ‘weaning’ — applying to the entire process of weaning from milk to solid food, instead of the North American usage which generally only applies to the very end of this process.

Rapley has recently published the ultimate guidebook, Baby-led Weaning: Helping Your Baby To Love Good Food.  It challenges existing assumptions about spoonfeeding and guides parents to a more developmentally appropriate approach to solids.

But wait — if BLW is so simple and natural, why should we need an entire book to explain to us how and why to do it?  The fact is, we have become so conditioned to believe that the usual method of beginning our infants with runny rice cereal, gradually progressing through smooth then lumpier purees, in defined quantities and on a defined schedule, keeping flavours bland and simple — is the right and indeed the only way to do things, that we don’t even think about even questioning why this is the way we do it. It takes an entire book to clear away our mental blockages and reveal our hidden, faulty assumptions.

If you do nothing else, if you don’t have the time to read this entire article, at least read this book. And if you do read this entire article and want to learn more, read this book. If you read this article and are still not convinced, then — you guessed it — read this book. .  It will answer any questions you might have that aren’t covered within the limited scope of this article.

A Brief History of Infant Feeding

To understand the logic of completely ditching cereals and purees, we first have to realize why the current schedule and method for infant feeding is the way it is.  The reasons are manifold and complicated, but suffice it to say that current feeding practices were developed in the early twentieth century, in response to nutritional deficits in commercial infant formula, and the transfer of authority from the mother to the physician – who would prescribe rigidly scheduled feedings, compromising breastfeeding and leading to undernourished babies.

As such, it became the standard to start giving “solid” supplemental foods to babies 3 months old, or 2 months old… or even younger, as a nutritional necessity.

Babies that young are not able to “eat”.  They do not have the muscular coordination to chew, they cannot sit upright, and they have the “tongue thrust reflex”, whereby anything unexpected in their mouth is just pushed right back out again.  In order to “feed” very young babies, they must in fact be tricked. The food must be liquefied because they cannot chew.  They must be spoonfed to get past the tongue reflex, circumventing an important safety mechanism (though in most cases, you still have to push the same spoonful back in several times before it stays).  And it must be bland, tasteless, indistinguishable from their accustomed milk, or else they will reject it.

It was also expected that babies would be completely weaned onto solid foods by their first birthday, at the latest.  And so a strict schedule of how many meals per day was implemented, gradually, deliberately replacing milk feedings, and changing in texture and consistency as the baby grew older.

What We Now Know About Infant Nutrition

Of course, we now know that breastfeeding on demand provides all the nutrition that a baby needs for at least the first 6 months or even the first full year.  Modern formulas, while not nearly as complete as breastmilk, are still quite adequate for nourishing the baby whose mother is unable to breastfeed and no additional supplements are necessary.  In fact, not only do babies not need any supplemental nutrition for the first 6 months, it is in fact potentially harmful for them to ingest anything other than milk, as their digestive systems are not yet mature enough to handle anything else.  Too-early introduction of solid foods has been associated with increased allergies, digestive problems in later life, and possibly even obesity.

The 6-month-old baby is a very different creature from the 3-month-old.  At 6 months of age, most babies:

• are keen to imitate everything they see their parents doing, including eating
• are curious about new experiences, including tastes and textures
• can hold objects and manipulate them, including finger foods
• can sit upright
• have lost the tongue thrust reflex
• can chew

So all of the reasons that spoonfeeding is necessary for the 3-month-old simply do not apply to the older baby.  It fact, it was not uncommon under the old guidelines to begin finger foods and some self-feeding at around 6 months old.  Our babies have not changed, only the age at which we begin solid foods has changed.  But paradoxically, we have not changed our method and schedule of introducing solids to match the vastly different developmental stage of the older baby!

As Rapley says in her book (pp. 33-34):

Of course, spoon-feeding seemed to be unavoidable when it was believed that babies of three or four months needed ‘solids’ since, at that age, they couldn’t chew or get food to their mouths themselves.  This led to an assumption that spoon-feeding and purees were an essential part of introducing solids, no matter what the age of the baby.

So, although research now tells us that those babies who started solids at three or four months old (or even younger) shouldn’t have been having them at all, most people still assume that a baby’s first solid foods should be given by spoon.  But there doesn’t appear to be any research to back this up.

How It Works

Baby-led solids is simply about trusting your baby to feed herself, the way she has ever since birth (feeding on demand).  It involves realizing that we do not need to trick or coerce our babies into eating, nor do we need to ‘teach’ them how to eat, nor is there any ‘window’ whereby if we do not make them eat by a certain age, then they never will.  Eating is an essential survival mechanism, it only makes sense that a human child will instinctively begin eating when she is developmentally ready to do so, just as she will begin to sit up, walk, and communicate, all on her own with no specialized instruction or coercion from her parents. So long as they are given the opportunity, all healthy babies will do all these things by themselves, in their own time.

For many families, their first experience with baby-led solid begins when their baby swipes a bit of food off mom’s plate and starts gnawing away at it.  At first, this is simple curiosity on the baby’s part.  He does not yet understand that this will fill his tummy, he just wants to check it out, and do what mom is doing.  BLW as a method is simply allowing your baby to continue this exploration of food on his own terms.  Over the course of a few months, your baby progresses from exploration (with limited ingestion), to deliberate eating for hunger, until he is eating complete meals and beginning to reduce his milk feeds.  And this all happens with no pressure or interference from the parent, who has simply allowed natural development to take place.

The Problem With Spoonfeeding

• Replaces healthier milk. Solid foods are less nutritionally dense than breastmilk or even formula.  An infant’s primary source of nutrition should be milk for at least their first year, with solid foods being only a supplement and not a main source.  Spoonfeeding tends to put more food in a baby’s tummy than they actually need, leaving less room for the essential, healthier milk.
• Interferes with long-term breastfeeding. Since the typical schedule for solid foods is designed with complete weaning from the breast by age one in mind, completely filling up baby’s tummy with solid foods, there is a risk that your baby will nurse less, depleting your milk supply, and leading to complete weaning much earlier than would have happened naturally.
• Power struggles over food. Since your baby has no control over what or how much she eats, she is more likely to resist, seeking to gain some power over her own body.  The “airplane game” is really a manipulative attempt to win this power struggle, based on a faulty (and nonsensical, when you think about it) assumption that babies will resist eating solids and our job is to overcome this resistance and make them eat.
• Suppression of instinctive appetite control. When you are spoonfeeding according to a schedule, you are more likely to try to get baby to “finish the jar,” even if she is clearly communicating that she is finished.  This overrides the natural connection between hunger, appetite, and portion control, leading to potential problems with overeating in the future.
• Bland food leads to a bland palate. Most children prefer white bread, basic pastas, hot dogs, and other simple “kids’ foods,” rather than a rich and healthy variety of ‘real’ or ‘grownup’ food.
• Cereal is not a healthy first food. Cereal only became the standard first food because it was easy to mix into a very young infant’s bottle.  There are no nutritional advantages to it whatsoever.  In fact, cereal is heavy in starch and carbohydrates, which are difficult for an infant to digest, and a diet heavy in carbs is not a balanced diet.
• It’s complicated! Measuring, pureeing, organizing, freezing, cleaning, scooping.  Food mills, food processors, jars, spoons, ice cube trays and specialized storage kits.  Recipe books just for babies.  Counting, planning, fretting that they’re not ‘eating enough,’ scheduling, worrying when to progress to ‘stage two’…

Advantages of Baby-led Solids

• Optimum balance of milk and solids.  By letting your baby control his portions, according to his own instincts, you will not unintentionally fill him up with the less-nutritious solid foods.  He will gradually nurse less frequently, according to his own ideal balance of milk and solid foods, and wean on his own natural schedule.
• Confidence and independence. Since your baby is in complete control of their feeding, deciding what to eat and how much of it, there are no power struggles.  Rather than being a passive recipient of food, she is a confident explorer, and as she matures she will be keen to try new things rather than suspicious of foods she hasn’t eaten before.
• Self-regulation of portions. Your baby maintains his connection with his appetite, leading to a healthy attitude to portion control.  He simply stops eating when he is full.
• Your baby is part of the dinner table. Rather than needing to be fed a separate dinner on a separate schedule, she joins you at dinner.  Your food doesn’t grow cold while you feed your baby first, and she isn’t bored while everyone else eats.  She can participate in dinner conversation and learn table manners by observation and imitation.  She learns about using cutlery and how different foods are eaten by example… and by eating the same foods as everyone else.
• Enjoyment of wide variety of flavours. ‘Grown-up foods’ are not something children need to ‘graduate’ or grow into.  When they eat real foods from the beginning, with rich flavours and spices and a variety of textures, they will continue to eat real foods and not become dependent solely on “kid’s food”.
• The right balance at the right time. You can relax knowing that she is eating exactly what she needs to be healthy.  A growing toddler is more likely to ‘binge’ on carbs at times, an older infant might focus on healthy fats or proteins, or go through periods of hardly eating at all but only breastfeeding, all according to what her body needs at this particular stage of growth.  Studies have shown that when offered a variety of healthy foods, without adult influence or interference, babies will instinctively choose a balanced menu providing all the nutrients they require.  So there’s no guesswork on your part.
• It’s so easy! Make a healthy meal for your family, put some on your baby’s plate.  That’s about all there is to it.  Really.

But What About Choking?

This is the inevitable question when people first learn about BLW.  In fact, there is no greater concern about choking than with spoonfeeding, and it may even help protect against choking.  Humans have an innate gag reflex, whereby anything that gets to the back of the mouth unexpectedly (or is too large to swallow) will be regurgitated with a retching action.  In babies, this reflex is further forward in the mouth, and so gagging is fairly common while they are learning to handle food.  Although this is commonly confused with choking, it is actually the normal protective mechanism, preventing choking while a baby learns to manipulate food in his mouth with his tongue, to chew and swallow.  Spoonfeeding denies a baby the chance to practice this manipulation while the gag reflex is still extra-active. By the time a traditionally spoonfed baby is allowed to practice with finger foods, the gag reflex has receded somewhat, closer to the airway, and is thus less effective as a protective mechanism.  Gill Rapley again (p. 63):

So babies who haven’t been allowed to explore food from the beginning may miss the opportunity to use it to help them learn how to keep food away from their airway.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that babies who have been spoon-fed have more problems with gagging and ‘choking’ when they start to handle food… than those who have been allowed to experiment much earlier.

Final Food For Thought

Of course, many readers will now be saying “but I raised my babies by spoonfeeding purees and they loved it and turned out just fine.”  And it’s true that many babies will develop into healthy eaters no matter how we approach their first foods.  But this won’t be true for all babies.  BLW decreases the risks of many eating problems and is just plain easier and more enjoyable for both parent and baby.  While problems stemming from spoonfeeding may not always be extreme or applicable to all babies, the fact remains that it is completely unnecessary… so why go through the bother?

Let’s leave the last words to Gill Rapley (pp. 240-241):

Baby-led weaning can help to prevent the sorts of battles over food that are an all-too-common story amongst the parents of toddlers and young children and it can contribute to making family mealtimes fun for everyone.  in a nutshell, it makes eating the pleasure it should be.

… There is a growing amount of evidence that the way children are fed when they are very young establishes the way they will feel about food throughout their childhood, and maybe even into adulthood.  Obesity and eating disorders are in the news almost every week … Many of these problems have their roots in one (or both) of two key issues: appetite recognition and control.  The healthy development of both of these things is at the heart of BLW.

So much of the advice parents are given about infant feeding is still based on the abilities of three- or four-month-old babies and the assumption that babies need to be spoon-fed.  It rarely takes into account the natural abilities of six-month-old babies to take the lead with solids and feed themselves.  Baby-led weaning brings together what we not know about when a baby should start solids with what we can see babies are able to do at this age.

For more information, of course read this book. , and check out Gill Rapley’s website.

[This post was written by Heather Dunham]

Photo: roxeteer under creative commons.

Baby Essentials That Aren’t Part 8: Swim Diapers?

In the spirit of telling you about products we don’t think you need (adding to Heather‘s original series) so you can reduce your consumption and at the risk of upsetting those that find such items invaluable (like nursing bras), we wonder…do you really need swim diapers?

As the spring time weather warms, more and more readers are coming to Eco Child’s Play from swim diaper Google searches.  Although Kristen did review reusable swim diapers in the past, this is one baby item that I have never purchased or used.   My experiences may be different, as most of our early swim time occurred at the river or in private pools, but my cloth diapered babes never wore anything when they swam.

 

Does a swim diaper really prevent urine and fecal matter from entering pools?  Kristen Chase wrote:

Truth be told, disposable swim diapers are more for easing our minds and less about containing bodily fluids and bowel movements. Basically, they just don’t contain all the chemicals that regular disposables do, therefore keeping them trim and less saggy when they hit water. But, they certainly don’t hold urine well. And, while they might hold a bowel movement for a good five minutes, you do not want your kid swimming around with a swim diaper full of poop.

Urine is relatively benign, and with the amount of chemicals in a pool, I don’t worry about a little baby pee spoiling the water.  Feces may be a different matter, but in my experience, my children never ever went poo in a pool or the river.  On the beach, yes, but in the water, never.  Even if they had, I doubt a swim diaper would have prevented little bits of contamination any better than the bathing suit that would hold the turds in just as well.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offer the following:

The use of swim diapers and swim pants may give many parents and pool staff a false sense of security regarding fecal contamination.

Little scientific information exists on how well swim diapers and swim pants are able to keep feces or infection-causing germs from leaking into the pool. Even though swim diapers and swim pants may hold in some feces, they are not leak proof and can still contaminate the pool water. It is unlikely that swim diapers are able to keep diarrheal stools, the most serious water contaminant, from leaking into the pool. No manufacturers claim these products prevent leakage of diarrhea into pools.

Parents should not allow their children enter the water when they are ill with diarrhea, even if they are wearing swim diapers or swim pants. They risk contaminating the pool and making other children sick.

Swim diapers and swim pants are not a substitute for frequent diaper changing. It is recommended that parents change their children often and make frequent trips to the toilet while swimming.

Pool operators should try and make sure that parents:

• Understand the importance of NOT swimming when ill with diarrhea.((https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/swimming/swimmers/swim-diapers-swim-pants.html))

I think swim diapers are an extra expense that don’t really serve much purpose.  They get soggy and leaching occurs.  My children learned quickly not to soil their bathing suit, even at a tender young age, or when they were swimming naked didn’t soil the water.  There may be some rules necessitating swim diapers at baby swim classes, but for regular water play, I just never found the need.

• Plan regular and frequent (approximately every 30 to 60 minutes) diaper changing or trips to the toilet. This will reduce the chance of fecal contamination and can also reduce the amount of urine in the pool that binds with disinfectant and creates irritants in the air (see Irritants (Chloramines) & Indoor Pool Air Quality).

I think swim diapers are an extra expense that don’t really serve much purpose. They get soggy and leaching occurs. My children learned quickly not to soil their bathing suit, even at a tender young age, or when they were swimming naked didn’t soil the water. There may be some rules necessitating swim diapers at baby swim classes, but for regular water play, I just never found the need.

[This post was written by Jennifer Lance]

Baby Essentials That Aren’t, Part 9: Changing Tables

The list.  You’ve seen it, or maybe you have gotten one when invited to a baby shower. The quintessential baby items.  Google “Baby Essentials”, and you will be bombarded with the expense of that new little one.  From necessity or experience, our writers have told you about many of these Baby Essentials That Aren’t.

When viewing WebMd’s baby essentials list, a changing area is mentioned.

• Changing area: This can be on top of a dresser or a separate changing table. It is a good idea to purchase a pad to lay baby on top of when changing. You’ll be changing a lot of diapers, so it’s a good idea to have a comfortable surface at a good height that won’t hurt your back. Never take your hand or eyes off baby when changing him or her, especially if your changing area is off the ground; babies can roll off the table at the blink of an eye.

Although not saying a changing table is an absolute necessity, even implying one has dresser that is clear on top for changing diapers is quite an assumption, at least it was for me.

I never had a changing table. Yes, I wanted one, but we lived in a very small cabin when my children were born, and there was simply no room for one. Sure, we could have got a used one to save money, or simply a changing pad, but it just seemed like more paraphernalia we didn’t need.

Of course, I changed many cloth diapers.  I used the floor or bed, where ever I was.  I would place a blanket down first, to protect against messes, then change away. The cloth diapers were kept in a basket that was easy to grab.

At one point, I had a play pen.  I felt I needed this after showering one day and finding my daughter had rolled under a chair.  She hated the play pen. She wouldn’t stay in it without screaming, so I couldn’t leave her in it.  It became a storage bin for toys.  It did come with a changing table type top. It had to be fitted just right onto the play pen, and as it folded in half, I was always afraid it would just collapse on my child. I did use it for awhile, but I felt the floor a much safer option.

If you are looking to slim down your costs and junk related to that new baby, I think the changing table can go.  I am sure some of our readers will disagree, but it is just as easy to change your baby on the floor, couch, or bed without having a dedicated piece of furniture just for changing diapers.

A changing table is not something that can easily be used beyond baby’s need, and toddlers in diapers are too large to lift up to the surface anyways.  If a changing table can be converted to a bookshelf, then maybe I would consider it.

[This post was written by Jennifer Lance]