to ask why you would put your 'hungry baby' on a diet?(95 Posts)
I don't understand the logic...please help me out.
Hungry baby milk has the same calories per 100 grams as normal, but takes longer to digest....or in other words hungry baby formula is a diet food....it makes the baby feel full longer and hence reduces their daily calorie intake, by reducing the number of feeds.
Similarly with introducing solids. Mashed potato or whatever has about the same calories per 100g but they are almost impossible to digest. Again the baby feels full longer but gets less calories in a day because they will ask for less feeds.
So would you respond to thinking your baby is hungry by:
a) feeding them more often so they get more calories
b) feeding them diet food, so they get less calories
alibaba there are lots of reasons and im sure that you know them really.
it might just not be the done thing in their little world,ad no one has challenged them(happened to me with ds1)
they may think its unnatural(obv rubbish but some people do,my own mum included)
they may have issues from their past such as abuse which makes them not want to try bf
I always wondered what the difference was. I had a friend when dc1 was born who started giving her 4 week old baby hungry baby milk which seemed pretty odd to me. My first three were bottle fed but just had normal milk every few hours so never really needed hungry baby milk.
My 4th was breastfed and had no problems at all I scoffed at how easy it was.
Then I had dc5 and it had been a nightmare. No pain from the actual feeding latch good supply good but an awful skin infection which I have had for MONTHS loads of creams, antibiotics etc I now understand why people give up. I have been so close over the last few months but its finally clearing up now that my dd is 13 months.
to answer your original question alibaba
I have bf my 4 for various lengths of time,my 3rd for 2 yrs,the other 3 between a couple of weeks and a couple of months
i found with the 3 i gave formula,when you first switch to bottles it seems so much easier,the after a couple of weeks you realise its harder because of all the sterilizing and having to warm bottles up i the night and stuff.
Also i have always give the comfort milk(this time as soon as i switched to ff as i didnt want to wait til my baby was screaming with constipation)and they have actually stopped making it,so now what am i supposed to do?
If i was bf,my baby wouldnt be constipated and i wouldnt have to worry about what i was going to feed him,so yes i wished id tried harder,my problems could of easily been sorted i just didnt ask for help.
alibaba I'm unusual in my family in wanting to BF...the reasons given to me were varied...my breasts aren't for that, it's goin to be painful and hard work, DH can't help with BF, baby won't get into a routine with BF, but mainly some people just 'don't believe the hype' and think the extra work (which it is for many) just isn't worth the rewards as they don't buy into them
No Amber I don't mean why do people choose to FF in the first place. I'm aware of all the various reasons that lead people to make that choice.
What I'm curious about, is if FF is then 'difficult' in the ways that people have talked about on this thread with babies wanting too much milk, needing HBM and so on - does that experience make them re-evaluate and wish they had BF instead?
I FF and dont get the hungry baby milk at all and I dont know anyone who has used it. FF is piss easy, making up a bottle is about as hard as making a cup of tea. If they are having a growth spurt put an extra scoop in.
I think if you decide to FF it is usually for a pretty strong reason so it wouldn't enter your head to wish you had BF?
If you have trouble and have to stop BF, then encounter probs with FF then yes, you may wish you had been able to continue
I had to formula-feed because I was physically unable to breastfeed (something I still feel guilty about), but we had a really tough time with out DS.
From about two weeks old up until he was 12 weeks, he would feed perfectly normally. Then around 4pm he'd feed...but he wouldn't stop. He'd demand more milk more milk more milk. He'd drink so much that eventually he'd throw it all back up. Then 15 minutes later he'd be screeching for a feed again, and the cycle would go again. He'd demand so much food that he'd throw it all up, and then demand more food because his stomach was empty. We'd give him another bottle and he'd drink enough to satisfy his hunger and then it would return to normal again.
We had no idea what was wrong, and we tried probably a hundred different solutions. We tried colief, gripe water, moving his legs, baby massage, giving him a bath, trying to alter his feeding ritual, rocking, singing, putting him down for a nap, playing with him, taking him for walks and drives, taking him to the park, baby indigestion powder, lactose-free milk... you name it we tried it. At 10 weeks we went to our HV who eventually just went "Have you tried Hungry Baby?".
We tried it and it was an immense relief. All of the food he was sicking up in the afternoon suddenly stopped. He became more relaxed in the afternoons and less agitated - the relief on our faces must have been a picture, and he was a happier baby for it.
Honestly? I can understand why people would put their children onto it. DS was amazing for sleeping through and was a perfect baby in every respect except for two hours in the afternoon. It was the oddest thing I've ever known.
beatlegirl I sobbed every time I fed my DC for about 5 weeks (well the first week was fine it was after that) but I continued. My SIL said she was going to give up as it was hurting a bit and that can't be right. I told her about me and she was amazed. She is still feeding now at 5 months and it is fine. She would otherwise have given up. I think people believe it is easy and give up if it hurts a bit. Obviously I can't tell if yours was worse than mine, but I do think a lot of things can be overcome with a bit of help and support.
I haven't used hungry baby milk but I imagine that people use it when their baby is effectively demanding more milk than they actually need in calorie terms. In the same way that I don't rush to give DD chocolate every time she demands it just because it is higher in calories than the alternative food available. However other posters seem to suggest that it is just a different formulation that suits some babies, in the same way that one baby may not do so well on SMA as Aptamil or vice versa.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Alibaba I didn't choose to ff, either there was something wrong with me or all three of my children missed the lesson on bf being natural before they were born I wish it had worked for us but it didn't so formula was the only choice, but hen other than the sickness with both boys, it was all ok on formula and they are healthy children now.
numerical just because that was you and your SILs experience doesn't mean it's true for everyone...I too worked thru the pain of the first couple of weeks, but not everyone can and I do believe the mother's happiness is important too. I can see why if the pain was worse than I had, or lasted longer, I would have switched to FF
Babies on the hungry baby formula don't get less than they need - it helps them to not over feed. Just like with most food there is a difference between calorie content and feeling full. A bowl of muesli and yoghurt will be more calories than the egg with marmite on wholemeal toast but the egg and toast will keep me fuller longer - why - because it is slower release and more protein based. The same is true for formula milk. It keeps them fuller a little bit longer so that they don't consume more than they need.
You have a bad memory My ds is 17 and there was most definitwly hungry baby milk. Although I think it wasnt called hungry baby. There was white and gold versions of sma. One was hungry baby milk.
When DD was a few days old we started mixed feeding her. Regular formula made her vomit, so we gave her hbm, which mostly stayed down.
I've recently realised she has a dairy intolerance, which is why she was being sick. I'm very annoyed that the hbm masked this, and I haven't realised for so long
Plan is to mix-fed next baby (i don't get on with ebf, it's too much) but only if they can tolerate normal formula. No hungry baby allowed!
golden I wasn't looking for justifications, or anything like that. I hope I haven't upset you.
Maybe I'm just naive being a first time mum, but if I was ff my DD and I thought she had a large appetite then maybe I would pick up something like this if I saw it in the supermarket. I mean how do you know when to just up the volume of their feeds or move on to this type of milk? You would assume it is higher in calories, hope the packaging provides clear guidance!
No, I will always regret not being able to bf. But it is something I have had to get over. I didn't mean to sound like I was justifying it, I never gave the whole hungry baby milk thing a lot of thought tbh, so it was not a problem for me at all. I had my reasons for using it for ds2, I didn't need it for the other 2. I certainly never thought of it as putting him on a diet.
Sorry,, Evil Satan mother here!! My babies (twins) where on hungry baby formula - (the one I used had more calories than the non.) for 11pm feeds from around 3 months and I started introducing solid food at 4 months. it must be the dark magic i use that makes them such beautiful healthy bright children today . i can say though that appart from the cold or teething issues I slept well and appolgise to no one for that
Thumbs up to Pilgit for explaining it v. well
pilgit thats what I said in the OP simply rephrased. It doesn't address the issue of whether or not a baby demanding more milk is A) correct and needs more calories B) greedy and in need of being put on a diet.
Everything I have read about post weaning toddler nutrition says that you should feed them when they are hungry and not force food on them when they are not. This enables the child to maintain their inbuilt calorie counter in good nick and reduces levels of obesity later in childhood.
I am not getting why that shouldn't still be the case for babies on milk. It is for BF babies...you feed on demand. Why should it not be FF? Is there some magic ingredient that stops babies recognising then they are full on FM? IT would appear to have basically the same calorie density as BM?
I wonder if it is actually this practise of not feeding FF babies when they 'demand' that is correlated with increases in childhood obesity, and actually nothing to do with the FM itself.... <ponders>
formula is harder for a babys digestive system to digest,so im guessing hbm just has more of the bit they find hard to digest?(which is why bf babies feed more as they digest it quicker)
No Icb it's the snack culture and I suspect,crap food and a sedentary lifestyle.
Mothers constantly handing out snacks all through the day can't be good.The snacking thing is relatively new.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.