Carrying babies reduces crying!

I have just discovered this article from the journal Pediatrics, published in 1986!!! For those readers who need "scientific" evidence to support the obvious.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 77 No. 5 May 1986, pp. 641-648

This Article
Full Text (PDF)

Increased Carrying Reduces Infant Crying: A Randomized Controlled Trial Urs A. Hunziker MD1 and Ronald G. Barr MDCM, FRCP(C)1

1 From the Department of Pediatrics, The McGill University-Montreal Children's Hospital Research Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

The crying pattern of normal infants in industrialized societies is characterized by an overall increase until 6 weeks of age followed by a decline until 4 months of age with a preponderance of evening crying. We hypothesized that this "normal" crying could be reduced by supplemental carrying, that is, increased carrying throughout the day in addition to that which occurs during feeding and in response to crying. In a randomized controlled trial, 99 mother-infant pairs were assigned to an increased carrying or control group. At the time of peak crying (6 weeks of age), infants who received supplemental carrying cried and fussed 43% less (1.23 v 2.16 h/d) overall, and 51% less (0.63 v 1.28 hours) during the evening hours (4 PM to midnight). Similar but smaller decreases occurred at 4, 8, and 12 weeks of age. Decreased crying and fussing were associated with increased contentment and feeding frequency but no change in feeding duration or sleep. We conclude that supplemental carrying modifies "normal" crying by reducing the duration and altering the typical pattern of crying and fussing in the first 3 months of life. The relative lack of carrying in our society may predispose to crying and colic in normal infants.
Key Words: crying • carrying • colic • mother-infant interaction.

Submitted on May 17, 1985Accepted on July 10, 1985

Less than one in three babies exclusively breast-fed even for six months

From AAP:

Workplaces 'not breastfeeding-friendly', May 7, 2007 - 7:29PM

Australian mothers are forced to wean their babies off breast milk too early because workplaces are not "breastfeeding-friendly", a public inquiry has been told. Federal guidelines recommend that infants be fed only breast milk until they are six months old, but national figures show only about 32 per cent are exclusively breastfed. Women's Electoral Lobby representative Natasha Pollock said women were not breastfeeding or were weaning early because their workplaces did not provide privacy, they struggled to find child care close to work or bosses believed having infants at work lowered productivity. The lobby on Monday called on the government to provide universal paid maternity leave and make sure employers provided feeding-friendly workplaces. Most mothers intended to breastfeed their babies, but the rate fell dramatically once they left hospital after giving birth, it said. Inquiry chair Alex Somlyay said the hearings were trying to establish what could be done to increase breastfeeding rates so Australian children received the best possible start to life. Children who are not breastfed are at a higher risk of developing eczema, diabetes, gastroenteritis and lymphatic cancer. Ms Pollock said allowing women to breastfeed at work improved retention of skilled female workers and reduced absenteeism, as breastfed babies were sick less frequently and recovered faster, she said. She said studies had shown that every $1 invested in breastfeeding support returned $3.
"There is a sound business case for employers to support breastfeeding women," Ms Pollock told the inquiry. Ms Pollock cited a United States study of 462 women that found 90 per cent of women in workplaces that supported breastfeeding returned to work before their baby was five months old and continued breastfeeding for six months on average. "That shows what a success it can be if it's implemented properly," Ms Pollock said. "At the moment there is no onus on employers to make a workplace breastfeeding-friendly, and women don't know what their rights are." WEL representative Ingrid McKenzie said governments had a crucial role in encouraging breastfeeding through legislative and funding programs. "The current resourcing by the commonwealth government is, to put it mildly, minimal and we find that particularly surprising in light of the current budgetary condition (and) when it is such an important public health initiative," Ms McKenzie told the inquiry. The government had provided "fairly meagre" funding to a scheme designed to encourage breastfeeding in 2002, but discontinued it after two years. The Australian College of Midwives on Monday told the inquiry the scheme had shown promising results but needed renewed government funding and support to expand. About 58 hospitals in Australia are accredited under the Baby Friendly Health Initiative, which assesses facilities on whether they support, respect and encourage breastfeeding. Mothers in accredited hospitals were more likely than other mothers to breastfeed their babies, the college said. The midwives' organisation said the number of hospitals in the program had doubled during the two years the scheme received government funding.

Andrew Reiner: If our media were more socially responsible then srories such as this would be given far greater prominence, the horrific nature of these statistics would be pointed out and the public would have some chance to understand what a nightmare we are creating. Neither Mr Ruddock nor Mr Howard have publicised thes things, nor the state governments nor anyone with any chance of actually making it into print or onto television. Really, as far as the public are concerned, these are non-issues. The minimum time that babies need to be breastfed, even according to the conservative World Health Organization (WHO), is not six months but tw0 years. Even the American Pediatric Association (AMA) recommends a minimum of 12 months. Anyone who has had the delight to spend time with babies and watch them grow and develop very quickly becomes aware that babies naturally seek to be fed in this way, delight in it and thrive on it, as do their mothers. Without the incessant noise from the outside world confusing mothers about the positive value of "work" and "career" and the negative value of mothering, such an issue would never arise. Mothers would naturally, spontaneously and lovingly breastfeed their babies until such time as both were ready to move on to the next stage of their lives. Fron what I have observed, this would rarely occur before 2 years and six months of age, but probably much later. Just as our economy has no place for elders, so it has no place for babies, infants, or full time mothers. These people are thought to contribute nothing to our greedy economy, therefore they have n value. This is even built into our language. A woman who spends almost 24 hours a day caring for her baby, working hours that no employee has ever worked, with little sleep and little rest does not "work". We even have a category called a "working mother", namely someone who has paid employment ("work") in addition to the mothering role (which, for reasons that defy logic, is not regarded as work, no matter how strenuous). There is a reason for the straits the world finds itself in. There is a reason for the sickness, depression and so-called "mental illness" that have become an epidemic. We will not find this reason in macro-analyses. The reason is to be found in the first weeks and months of life. It is now probably too late for the human race and indeed the planet. But it is not too late for any given individual. If you are considering becoming a mother or a father, or if you are soon to become one, you can make a simple decision now. Have your baby naturally and then listen to your own inner guidance rather than external authority. A mother's inner voice, together with the baby's innate capacity to communicate her needs are an infallible guide. You will know what to do.