Tummy time for baby?
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41015
Printed Date: 26 August 2025 at 11:10pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Tummy time for baby?
Posted By: Anna W.
Subject: Tummy time for baby?
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 3:58pm
|
I have quite a lot of mums say to me their baby seems to hate tummy time on the floor, so they stop offering it. We know how important it is though, especially to encourage babies to lift and turn their head to each side, developing those neck and shoulder muscles for pushing up later on.
Several suggestions: babies are usually receptive to lying on you, on their tummies for a little while, as they can see your face.Also,try placing a rolled up cuddly blanket or towel under their chest when they're on the floor, so it elevates them a bit more. Otherwise lie down there with them, or place some brightly coloured toy there for them to look at. Keep tummy time "short and sweet" in the beginning - even if it's just for a minute or two. It's well worth doing! ------------- Tired parents? Unsettled young baby? Difficulties with feeding? http://blogaboutbaby.wordpress.com - Click here to get FREE tips and advice on my blog |
Replies:
Posted By: mummymonster
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 6:51pm
|
I was at the plunket centre with my second still very young. The mature plunket nurse asked about tummy time. I said I didn't do very much with him, as he didn't like it. She commented that yes I should do it, though in her day (5 kids of her own) 'tummy time' wasn't even heard of and they all managed to hold their heads up just fine.
Just putting it out there. ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: newme
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 7:35pm
|
I do not believe in 'Tummy Time'.
Babies should not be put into positions that they cannot achieve on their own. There is plenty of evidence to support this. |
Posted By: Anna W.
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 8:16pm
|
Our lifestyles are very different today to what they were 20-30 years ago and I see lots of babies that spend much of their day in carseats,baby swings and bouncinettes etc. Some have very little opportunity for floor time and as a result, are slower to develop good muscle tone. Playing on the floor and tummy time help to offset this. ------------- Tired parents? Unsettled young baby? Difficulties with feeding? http://blogaboutbaby.wordpress.com - Click here to get FREE tips and advice on my blog |
Posted By: Lulu
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 8:18pm
|
My DD hated tummy time, so I did not persevere. She has developed normally. ------------- Lou http://www.babysfirstsite.com"> 
|
Posted By: MrsEmma
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 8:31pm
My kids have never really liked tummy time just on the floor alone, I have always had to prop them up on a blow up pillow that came with their play mat - and then they liked it and seemed to like seeing the world from another perspective than laying on their back  I definitely didn't/don't do it every day though.
A very close friend of mine is of the same belief as newme that babies should not ever be put into a position that they can't get into themselves and both her kids have developed wonderfully and in fact they both rolled both ways very easily, very early on (neither of my kids have ever rolled back to front, only front to back and yes I know rolling isn't a milestone but still). Granted my babies have also been a lot bigger than hers which I believe is part of it.. still, they are perfectly developed kids. Also just putting it out there.. Edited for spelling ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: pudgy
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 8:47pm
Mine hated tummy time also, and I didn't do it often. Have you got any reserch that backs up the slower developing muscle tone, and saying that it's bad? Also why is being slower to develop muscle tone bad ? ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
annawilliams wrote:Posted By: Anna W.
Date Posted: 19 November 2011 at 10:01pm
|
Hi there,
A good resource to check out is the Active Movement brochures put out by SPARC - they have some specific info on tummy time. If you just google Active Movement, it'll pop up. Also the Moving Smart website is worth looking at. This is what's so good about forums - questions come up and information gets shared. ------------- Tired parents? Unsettled young baby? Difficulties with feeding? http://blogaboutbaby.wordpress.com - Click here to get FREE tips and advice on my blog |
Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 4:17am
|
I didn't encourage tummy time either. I believe in only putting babies etc into positions they can naturally get into themselves. Lily wasn't a huge fan of tummy time but she rolled one way by 3 months, other way by 5, sitting at 5.5 months, crawled at 10. Walked at 13.5 months... All when she was ready not when I thought she was ready or whatever. Again as someone else mentioned... Dd was top of the charts height/weight wise. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: Nutella
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 9:07am
|
DS didn't like tummy time so I didn't bother, he spent lots of time on the floor on his back trying things out. He spent hardly any time in bouncer and we didn't have exersaucer thing, and he didn't like being propped up. Yip he was slow to roll, slow to sit, slow to crawl, slow to sit....by todays standards that is.
Doesn't seem to have affected him in the least, he is fine now, he can certainly walk normally enough and is an active little boy. I can understand there might be problems if babies are always in walkers/excersaucers, propped up with pillows, sleeping in car seats etc.... ------------- 
 Oct 11
|
Posted By: T_Rex
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 12:11pm
|
Just curious on the idea of only putting baby in positions she can get to herself - my 5 week old isn't capable of getting into any position herself! She rides upright in the moby and manduca and sleeps on her back in the cot. Put even if I put her on her back on the floor, that's a position she can't acheive herself. How is it different if I lay her on her front?
I'm actually curious, not stirring ------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: nannyabbey
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 4:59pm
| perhaps there should be a promotion of getting babies back onto the floor to allow the natural development happen (ie reduce all the 'lifestyle' gadgets and choices) rather than pushing tummy time? |
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 6:38pm
|
DS has always hated tummy time and I never pushed it, why would I make him do something he hated?
He's not quite 9 months, rolls, sits, pulls to standing and is 'just' about to crawl so I don't think it has hurt him in any way, ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: High9
Date Posted: 20 November 2011 at 6:46pm
|
I guess it's just with the whole safer sleeping on their backs?? ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Bky
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 8:27am
|
^^ Agree, I always felt that the tummy time push was as a result of increased back sleeping and the related increase in plagiocephaly (flat head)as well as our other modern (less baby holding/wearing) ways.
I was told that even 10 second increments were beneficial. So I'd do it until she got upset (though mine never really minded), as well as on my arm, leg, chest, whatever. ------------- 7/2010, 10/2012 and 1/2015 |
Posted By: lisame
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 10:12am
|
I had a baby that had a strong neck from birth and didn't seem to mind tummy time at all (I don't really remember making a huge effort to give her tummy time) but I know there are babies that don't like it.
But like T Rex... I'm wondering what position exactly can newborn babies get in to themselves? Does this mean that none of you ever put your babies in a sitting position until they are able to get there and back themselves? I know it's a big thing in the Pennie Brownlee etc philosophy but... for the first few months all we do is put them in various positions they can't get in themselves. |
Posted By: AandCsmum
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 1:43pm
|
I had one that loved tummy time on the floor & one that didn't, ie screamed blue murder when I put him on his tummy. He loved tummy time on me though ------------- Kel http://lilypie.com"> 
A = 01.02.04 & C = 16.01.09 & G = 30.03.12 |
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 3:14pm
|
I found it interesting the difference between my two - one had a lot of tummy time from day one and developed great neck control. It also gave him time off his back when not being held, to stop him getting even more of a flat head. He was an early crawler (4.5 months) and had excellent neck muscles and flexibility in movement.
My daughter had barely any tummy time - she had horrible reflux and only got a few seconds before she'd vomit everywhere and put her face in it. While I still gave her tummy time as I think they spend way too much time on their backs, it wasn't as much as my son. She took a lot longer to develop neck control and didn't develop an urge to move to get to things until later either, as she didn't often see things in front of her that she could grasp easily (other than things hanging down from the playmat etc). I'm quite concerned though that even tummy time is now becoming a debatable issue  kids these days are so often plonked on their backs or held by people or devices - none of which develop their muscles.
|
Posted By: clover
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 3:23pm
|
But what do you do if your baby hates it? I would put him on his tummy and leave him until he'd get unsettled, but that was never very long. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: MrsMc
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 6:04pm
i seee your point but the idea of putting baby on back instead of front is that on back babies spine is fully supported, he can move his arms and legs freely, he can freely move his head from side to side, can see a whole lot more, no part of him is trapped when he is in this position, he is fully in control. out of all position the back supports free movement the most. He can use this to find his hand, see how they move, what they look and taste like. He can kick his feet, raise them up, play with his toes, see how they taste. he can roll side to side, eventually rolling over to tummy, to learn the things he needs to on his tummy. Doesnt the beginnings of good excersise start at the core? if you're worried about how much baby is doing lie down and copy them, you will soon realise they are working hard to strengthen their core, this leads to excellent posture and ability to roll, crawl, walk. theory goes that if baby sleeps on a firm mattress, and plays on a firm surface (ie thin sheet, not squishy sheepskin) they will not get flat spots as they can freely move their heads to any position they like and wont stay in the same place. I agree that plunket etc should not be pushing for tummy time but for free movement, time out of the excersaucer and bouncer to just be and learn to develop their muscles properly |
Posted By: T_Rex
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 6:45pm
|
thanks mrsmc, makes sense ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Anna W.
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 6:55pm
|
Hey, great to see all your comments and opinions on this issue - I didn't expect so many responses!
I definitely agree that we need to get back to the basic stuff - more time on floor for baby, (whichever position) instead of all the equipment that we use these days. As someone mentioned, if baby is only happy for a minute or two on their tummy, then go with that. As parents, you should have access to all the information out in the community,then you can make your own decisions on what feels right for you and your baby. Go for it! ------------- Tired parents? Unsettled young baby? Difficulties with feeding? http://blogaboutbaby.wordpress.com - Click here to get FREE tips and advice on my blog |
Posted By: whipersnapper
Date Posted: 21 November 2011 at 10:24pm
|
babies 1-4 had tummy time, hated it, didn't do it much.
babies 5 and 6 (twins) had no tummy time whatsoever because of information provided by a SPACE (playcentre baby classes) co-ordinater. according to space theory, babies should not be put in positions they cannot acheive themselves. This includes sitting up propped and on tummy. babies should develop in this order....laying on back, rolling on to front, roling back, getting up on kness, pushing themselves back inot a sitting position, crawling, standing up, walking. I followed this advice, my twins developed perfectly normally, and at the same rate as my other children, without the extra added discomfort of forced tummy time. I would advise looking into it...interesting topic. |
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 23 November 2011 at 3:18pm
|
Oh i so agree about babies not being forced into positions. I hate bumbos and exercausers - which are really only walkers without wheels. it feels sometimes like we are in too much of a hurry to get babies to grow up. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: JessDub
Date Posted: 24 November 2011 at 7:31am
|
DS2 has had tummy time approx 5 times in his short life. At nearly 4 months old I put him on his tummy yesterday and he was head and chest up, quite ably and comfortably, which shows to me that he didn't actually need tummy time to get where he is now. ------------- 
|
Posted By: snugglebug
Date Posted: 25 November 2011 at 9:07am
|
Just to throw a spanner in the works, DS had a lot of floor and tummy time, and he rolled by 6 weeks, crawled at 5 months, steps at 9.5 months and walking properly at 10 months. I think all the time he spent on the floor exploring helped with this. I didn't force anything, he did these things himself because he had the opportunity to. He didn't always like tummy time at first so as soon as he got upset, I picked him up, but gradually that time increased and he loved it. I fully believe in it. Each to their own. ------------- Me 28, DH 29 DS born 20 Nov 2010 (4 years old) #2 due October 7 http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: MrsMc
Date Posted: 25 November 2011 at 12:14pm
I also know babies who have rolled at 6wks, crawled before 6 months and didn't have tummy time until they rolled there, how early babies develop is built into them and i don't think it has anything to do with tummy time or not. The idea of natural development is that they do things when they and their bodies are ready be that at 6weeks, 6 months or later ETA I just re read and sound a bit snarky, its not intended that way |
Posted By: Shelt
Date Posted: 27 November 2011 at 8:21pm
Lol and my DD had lots of tummy time and it took her 4.5 months to learn to hold her head up. She rolled once at 8 months, crawled at 13 months and walked at 17 months! If I had gone for the natural development way of doing things she wouldn't have done anything other than lay on her back for a very very long time! I agree that babies development seems to be built in to them. Some kids seem wired for early movement and some dont. My daughter would have loved to move a lot earlier than she did, she tried and tried and did a lot of screaming at her toys coz they were too far away - none of that helped her move any closer till her arms and legs decided they were ready  ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|