The real reason your baby is waking up at 4am despite you following the ‘correct' bedtimes – there's sleep science to it
A GENTLE sleep consultant has revealed the reason why your baby might be waking up at 4am, even if you're following what you believe to be the 'correct' bedtime routine.
Hannah Hiles took to her TikTok account ' ittakesavillagebabysleep ' to explain the sleep science behind it and how to overcome the problem.
1
Speaking to her followers, she said: 'If you're putting your baby to bed at 7pm and expecting them to sleep until 7am, you might be in for a surprise when they wake up as early as 4 or 5am.'
She continued: 'I've helped hundreds of families get sleep with no sleep training. I've never used Ferber method, cry it out or any extinction method, only sleep science."
The Ferber method, for those unfamiliar, is a sleep training technique where parents gradually increase the time they wait before comforting a crying baby or child.
The aim is to help the baby learn to self-soothe and fall asleep independently by allowing them to cry for short, increasing periods before receiving external comfort.
Hannah explained: 'So babies under six months old, their average night-time sleep is nine to 10 hours.
'So if you are putting your baby to bed at 7pm it is very reasonable that they wake up at 4am.
'Now over six months the average night-time sleep is 10 to 11 hours. Same thing if you put your baby to bed at 7pm it's reasonable that they wake up at 5am.
'Or what can happen is they can be super super restless and wakeful throughout the night and then sleep a little bit later in the morning.
'But either way you are either going to get a very busy night or start the day before the birds. What you want to do is push out that bedtime."
Hannah explained that one of the reasons parents struggle to do this is because their babies either have too few naps for their age or their naps are too close together and often too short.
Molly-Mae swears by £22 Dunelm buy she 'can't go anywhere without' for great sleep & says it's the 'best thing' she owns
She said: 'So what you want to do is stretch out your wake windows.
'In the morning it is fine to stretch out your wake window, depending on your little one's age but over six months they should be able to go 2.5 to 3 hours at least and then stretch out the second one.
'And then that third nap of the day you are going to have that as a super short even 15 to 30 minutes depending on your little one's age.
'The closer they are to 6 months, [then] 30 minutes, the further from 6 months they are, [then] around 15.
'And that's going to be your bridge nap.
'Now you can have that as late in the day as like 5pm because if your little one is under 6 months old, like this one is four months old, you want to be having that nap at like 6pm so that they are going to bed at like 9pm.
'Don't try to get rid of naps because what can happen is if you get rid of a nap too early then they go to bed too early and then they can have a false start because they think that's a nap or they can just be super restless."
Hannah believes it is better for parents and their babies to have a slightly later bedtime to allow for a more restful night.
She said: 'Late bedtimes are temporary, that bedtime will become earlier.
'Now my two sons are nearly 4 and nearly 2 and they both fall asleep around 8, 8.15 and they sleep to around 7, 7.30 the next morning.
Bedtime
'You will get nights like that whenever they get a little bit older but I have never had a bedtime any earlier than like 8pm really with either of them."
She added: 'So that's reasonable for yours as well.
'Some babies will sleep 7 to 7, some babies will sleep 15 hours a night. Those are the unicorn babies, they are not average, trust me."
Hannah's video gained 930.9k views and 2,418 comments after just three days, sparking a mix of reactions from viewers.
One wrote: 'Well your science is wrong.'
A second added: 'This is the opposite of what my night nanny taught me. We did 7-7 and it was amazing.'
And a third said: 'This isn't true at all. The earlier I put mine to bed the later they sleep in the mornings!'
But speaking exclusively to Fabulous, Hannah responded to the backlash: 'All the negative comments are from people arguing that what I'm saying is not accurate because their baby sleeps 7-7 or 12 hours a night.
'What I'm saying in the video is that the average is 10-11 hours overnight and if your baby does more they are above the average.
'I talk about how sleep training isn't good for babies and show parents a way to get sleep without sleep training, which I've done for hundreds of families.
Science sleeping
'These parents whose babies sleep 7-7 either have above average sleeping babies or they've sleep trained their baby and they're triggered by my science stance on this.
'The positive comments are from families who do experience wakefulness and sleep deprivation at night because they're aiming for the 7-7 night sleep which isn't attainable for most babies.
'They feel validated that someone said it so they can figure out their baby's individual sleep needs.
'I take a very factual scientific stance to sleep and sleep pressure and help parents achieve sleep without sleep training and I guess this makes parents who are sleep trained feel exposed and triggered.'
The best sleep routine and environment
Thomas Høegh Reisenhus, TEMPUR® sleep specialist & sleep counsellor, reveals the key components of a good bedtime routine and environment...
A sure-fire way to facilitate a better night's sleep is to practice good sleep hygiene.
Establish a sleep routine that works for you and stick to it.
This will help your body establish a consistent, natural sleep-wake cycle which can do wonders for your overall sleep quality.
As such, try to avoid making up for lost sleep with a lie-in.
Instead of sleeping in, spend your morning reading a book in bed or having a leisurely coffee in the kitchen.
Ensure that your bedroom, bedding, and sleepwear are fit for purpose too.
The ideal sleep environment is dark, quiet, and cool – much like a cave.
If you find unwelcome sources of light are keeping you up, consider investing in an eye mask or black-out curtains.
Adding soft furnishings can be a great way to reduce noise, with the surfaces having an absorptive quality, but if this doesn't work, consider embracing a soothing soundtrack to block it out.
In terms of temperature, try to keep your bedroom at 18°C. You can further reduce the risk of waking up due to overheating by ensuring that all your bedding and sleepwear is made with natural, breathable materials such as cotton and linen.
Bear in mind that everyone is different; what might work for most, may not work for you!
Whilst knowing how much sleep you should get, how to overcome common barriers, and practicing good sleep hygiene can facilitate a great night's sleep, if you continue to struggle with sleep or fatigue persistently, do not hesitate to visit a doctor or health professional for support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The REAL reason you feel bloated and gassy - and how you can tackle it for good: Dietitian and scientist DR EMILY LEEMING
Do you often feel painfully bloated by the end of the day? Are you frequently gassy? If the answer is yes then there's a good chance you have been told it's irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) – but there could be another underlying reason for your symptoms that's often missed. Research, such as a study published in the Journal of Gastroenterology in 2020, has found that as many as half of those diagnosed with IBS also have small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO).
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Republican lawmaker with ectopic pregnancy nearly died amid new Florida abortion laws – but blames the left
Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack has revealed that she almost died last year as a result of her state's six-week abortion ban, which left hospital staff reluctant to treat her ectopic pregnancy for fear of criminal prosecution. Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, Cammack, 37, reported her experiences in an unnamed Florida hospital's emergency room on May 31 2024 when it was discovered that there was no way for her baby's embryo to survive and that her own life was in danger without action. A doctor discovered the embryo implanted where the fallopian tube meets the uterus, a cornual ectopic pregnancy, and frankly told the representative: 'If this ruptures, it'll kill you.' But after deciding against surgery, the facility's doctors and nurses had to be persuaded to give her the shot of methotrexate she required to expel the pregnancy. That was because the state's six-week ban had come into effect at the start of that month, causing staff to fear they could lose their medical licenses and be sent to jail if they gave her the drug, which blocks the flow of folic acid to the embryo to prevent its growth. Cammack was only five weeks pregnant at the time, the embryo had no heartbeat and her own safety was in jeopardy, but nevertheless the congresswoman found herself forced to pull up the letter of the law on her phone to argue the case and even put in a call to Governor Ron DeSantis, without being able to reach him, before staff relented and came to her aid. Florida regulators have since issued new guidelines to clarify the situation and Cammack, who is pro-life and opposes abortion except in case of rape and incest or when the mother's life is at risk, is pregnant again and due in August. But surprisingly, given her ordeal, the representative does not feel the law itself is at fault and instead blames Democrats for scaring medical professionals into confusion over their responsibilities. 'It was absolute fearmongering at its worst,' Cammack told the Journal while acknowledging that reproductive rights activists might draw the opposite conclusion from her story. 'There will be some comments like, 'Well, thank God we have abortion services,' even though what I went through wasn't an abortion,' she said. Cammack also conceded that the heated political atmosphere surrounding the issue in recent years has not served to put the best interests of expectant mothers first. 'I would stand with any woman – Republican or Democrat – and fight for them to be able to get care in a situation where they are experiencing a miscarriage and an ectopic pregnancy,' she said. 'We have turned the conversation about women's healthcare into two camps: pink hats and pink ribbons. It's either breast cancer or abortion.' She said it was vital that women lead the debate on reproductive rights among House Republicans because men outnumber them six to one within their caucus, also reporting that one of her male colleagues 'almost sunk under the table' when she mentioned breastfeeding in a recent conversation. Dr. Alison Haddock, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, told the Journal it is becoming common for doctors in states that have restricted abortion access to worry 'whether their clinical judgment will stand should there be any prosecution.' 'This has been a real stress point for a lot of our physicians,' she said. Molly Duane, a senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, took issue with Cammack's argument that pro-choice activists were to blame for sowing confusion, pointing out that Florida's regulators had made it clear they intended to aggressively enforce their six-week ban while also failing to define ectopic pregnancy within the legislation.
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Republican senators' proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to send red states ‘backwards'
Advocates are urging Senate Republicans to reject a proposal to cut billions from American healthcare to extend tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporations. The proposal would make historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled people that covers 71 million Americans, and is the Senate version of the 'big beautiful bill' act, which contains most of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. 'With the text released earlier this week, somehow the Senate made the House's 'big, bad budget bill' worse in many ways,' said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Families USA, a consumer healthcare advocacy group, in a press call. The Senate's version makes deeper cuts to Medicaid and so-called Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) plans, 'both by expanding paperwork requirements and making it harder for states to fund Medicaid coverage for their residents', said Wright. If passed, the House-passed bill would have already made the biggest cuts to Medicaid since the program's enactment in 1965. With red tape and an expiration of additional healthcare subsidies to Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version would leave 16 million people without health insurance by 2034. CBO has not yet released estimates, or 'scored', the impact of the Senate proposal, but advocates and experts said the cuts are more draconian, 'punish' states that expanded Medicaid, and attack Medicaid by going after its byzantine financing structures. 'If we look at the big picture of our healthcare system that's where the inefficiencies are – not in Medicaid – but in all the groups profiting off the system,' said David Machledt, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program, referring to Republicans' assertions that they are targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' with cuts. 'What these cuts are going to do is look at the most cost-efficient program and squeeze it further, and take us backwards, and put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses.' A recent study found that expanding Medicaid, as was done during the Obama administration, probably saved an additional 27,400 lives over a 12-year period, and did so cheaper than other insurance programs. The same study found that about a quarter of the difference in life expectancy between low- and high-income Americans is due to lack of health insurance. Republicans, such as Senator John Thune of South Dakota, argue that their bill 'protects' Medicaid by 'removing people who should not be on the rolls', including working-age adults, legal and undocumented immigrants; by adding work requirements and by going after a tax maneuver states use to bring in more federal Medicaid funding. 'Removing these individuals is just basic, good governance,' said Thune. But experts and advocates argue the cuts will not only remove the targeted individuals, including many who are working but struggle to get through red tape, but will also place states in impossible situations with potentially multibillion-dollar shortfalls in their budgets. Both versions contain so-called work requirements, which analyses show will cause people to lose coverage even if they are eligible, experts said. Instead, the largest difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill is the Senate's attack on Medicaid's complex financing arrangements. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government, making it simultaneously one of states' largest expenditures and sources of revenue. The Senate's version specifically attacks two ways states finance Medicaid, through provider taxes and state-directed payments. With a provider tax, states bring in additional federal revenue by increasing payments to providers. Because the federal portion of Medicaid is based on a percentage rate, increasing payments to providers in turn increases the amount that federal officials pay the state. States then tax those same providers, such as hospitals, to bring the funding back to the state. Although this maneuver has been criticized, it has also now been used for decades. It's in place in every state except for Alaska, is legal and openly discussed. The Senate bill caps this manuever by cutting the tax rate by about half, from 6% to 3.5%, according to Machledt. In a 2024 analysis, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lowering the provider tax cap to 2.5% would effectively cut $241bn from Medicaid payments to states. Although the exact impacts of the Senate tax cap are not yet known, Machledt expects it would be in the billions, which states would then be under pressure to make up. 'We took great pains to close a $1.1bn shortfall caused by rising healthcare costs,' said the Colorado state treasurer, Dave Young, in a press call. 'To protect healthcare and education, we had to cut transportation projects, maternal health programs and even $1m in aid to food banks.' Because of taxing provisions in Colorado's state constitution, Young said: 'It will be nearly impossible to raise taxes or borrow money to make up the difference.' Similarly, the Senate bill goes after 'state-directed payments'. To understand state-directed payments, it's helpful to understand a big picture, and often hidden, aspect of American healthcare – health insurance pays providers different rates for the same service. Providers are almost universally paid the worst for treating patients who have Medicaid. Medicare pays roughly the cost of providing care, although many doctors and hospitals complain it is still too little. Commercial insurance pays doctors and hospitals most handsomely. To encourage more providers to accept Medicaid, lawmakers in some states have chosen to pay providers treating Medicaid patients additional funds. In West Virginia, a federally approved plan allows the state to pay providers more for certain populations. In North Carolina, state-directed payments allow the state to pay hospitals rates equal to the average commercial insurance rate, if they agree to medical debt forgiveness provisions. The first state-directed payment plan was approved in 2018, under the first Trump administration. These kinds of payments were criticized by the Government Accountability Office during the Biden administration. However, the Senate bill goes after these rates by tying them to Medicaid expansion – a central tenet of Obamacare – and gives stricter limits to the 41 states that expanded the program. Doing this will effectively be 'punishing them', Machledt said, referring to states that participated in this key provision of Obamacare, 'by limiting the way they can finance'. Advocates also warned of unintended knock-on effects from such enormous disruption. Medical debt financing companies are already readying new pitches to hospitals. Even people who don't lose their insurance and are not insured through Medicaid could see prices increase. When Medicaid is cut, hospital emergency rooms are still obliged to provide stabilizing care to patients, even if they can't pay. Hospitals must then make up that shortfall somewhere, and the only payers they can negotiate with are commercial: for example, the private health insurance most people in the US rely on. 'Folks who do not lose their health insurance will see increased costs,' said Leslie Frane, the executive vice-president of SEIU, a union that represents about 2 million members, including in healthcare. 'Your copays are going to go up, your deductibles are going to go up, your bills are going to go up.' Republicans hope to pass the bill by 4 July.
