Daycare vs circadian rhythm
My “lucky” “privileged” and “elitist” perspective on daycare
“lucky” “privileged” “elitist”
Yes, I have had all these names thrown at me for shring my reasons for avoiding daycare.
Online anyways, and especially on mom-Substack.
In real life, people don’t tend to be so quick to call names and throw labels.
But what does daycare have to do with my mission here?
Daycare, even high quality daycare, seems to disrupt the circadian flow of cortisol for the majority of youngsters1.
And unnatural cortisol patterns and circadian disruption in early life are correlated with lifelong outcomes, especially mental health outcomes.
Inside my circadian pregnancy & babyhood workshops I teach how the first 2-3 years of life are foundational for circadian rhythmicity across the lifespan.
The patterns set at this time tend to be carried forward for the rest of life.
I wouldn’t ever take daycare away from those who want to use it.
But to say daycare is always a good and necessary thing is absolutely a slap in the face to the intelligence and resourcefulness of mothers.
Mothers, regardless of income status, are capable.
Mothers today are doing what mothers have always done, which is finding the way that feels right in spite of the challenges of the era.
Personally, I believe creating systems and solutions that keep mothers and babies together and with healthy hormonal patterns is preferable to those designed to keep them apart to known detriment of these foundational hormonal rhythms.
If you are dropping your child off, from a cortisol standpoint the afternoon seems to be the real danger zone where cortisol starts moving in the opposite direction it should. Shortening the daycare hours and bringing babies and toddlers home after the morning could help protect their circadian rhythms from this aspect of daycare stress.
Resources:
Inspired by:
Nystad, K., Drugli, M. B., Lydersen, S., Tveit, H. H., Lekhal, R., & Buøen, E. S. (2025). Toddlers’ Cortisol Levels in Childcare and at Home. Early Education and Development, 36(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2024.2360873