Should i put my 6 week old baby onto hungry baby formula?(62 Posts)
My 6 week ds was born a whopping 9lb 8oz. He is gaining wieght ok, he was 12lb at his weigh in on Monday.
He is having 5oz of Cow and Gate formula at the moment and has been going 3 and a half to four hours between feeds.
Over the last few days he hasn't seemed satisfied and goes every 2 and half to three hours between feeds. Sometimes he will take the full bottle, then 2 and a half hours later will be really hungry again but only take 2 - 3 oz.
I have tried putting 6oz of formula in the bottle but he won't take it. I think it's because his stomach isn't big enough yet to take that amount of food in one go.
So do you think he needs to go on hungry baby milk? I am afraid he might get really fat though?
Personally I think 3.5-4 hours is quite a long time between feeds for a 6 week old, I would have thought as Reality suggested you should feed him more often, he will take what he needs.
My daughter used to go every 4 hours from the start. I just figured as he is a bigger baby he would be more hungry.
I don't think it makes any difference apart from making dd more constipated
I thought about changing to "hungry baby" milk with dd1 but my friend who is a nurse in baby clinic was adamant that I shouldn't.
Apparently it is just full of bulking agents (not extra nutrition) and can exacerbate wind and constipation and even lead to future stomach problems.
Really feel for you as have been there myself but 3 hourly feeds isn't too bad (dd wanted fed AT LEAST every 2 hours).
No don't it is just bulking agent to make them feel more full it is not more nutritious. A hungry baby just needs more "food".
I think the hungry milk isn't recommended for any baby until they are at least two months (kidneys can't handle it or summat?)
It's not 'bulking agents' !
The difference is that the protein in 'hungry baby' milk is not 'modified' - it's the same as ordinary cows milk. It's casein-dominant, in tech-speak.
The 'non-hungry baby' milk is 'whey-dominant' - some of the casein in it is taken away.
Casein is tougher for babies to digest, and so the milk stays in the stomach for longer (supposedly - there is no research on this that I have ever seen) and the baby is 'satisfied' for longer (again, no research).
But the calorie content is the same and both types of milk are 'approved' as breastmilk sustitutes by the department of health for use from birth.
The idea that it is a terrible thing, or bad for the kidneys, or whatever is, I suspect, manufacturer-led. Obviously, both 'non-hungry' and 'hungry' are far closer to each other than either of them is to breastmilk, anyway. The way these types are marketed is deliberately uninformative - where do you ever see anything about the casein-whey-modified-no-modified thing I have outlined above?
Manufacturers want there to be different types of milk - note, all brands have these different types. That way, consumers can start on one, then move to another, and then move to follow on and then move to toddler milk. Segmenting the market in this way encourages brand loyalty, gives the illusion of carefully-matching the baby's needs to the milk, and allows for a greater range in which to carve out a brand.
There is no risk that 'hungry baby'milk would be any more likely than the non-hungry milk to make a baby fat - how could it? The calorie content is the same.
tiktok interesting post.
It is not unusual for a ff baby to go every 3 - 4 hours between feeds, as aposed to a bf baby who will probably only go 2 hours maybe? Purhaps those who don't think it's right for a baby to go 4 hours are thinking of bf babies? If the baby is gaining weight ok then i don't see the problem in feeding every 4 hours?
A ff baby on average has 6 feeds in 24 hours (this is average, some go longer and some shorter.) The guidelines on the box says 6 feeds in 24 hours, this would make it a fed every 4 hours. Again some babies go longer between feeds and some go shorter.
I think maybe my baby is hungrier because he was born a bigger baby and still is a big baby.
Purhaps those who don't think it's NOT right for a baby to go 4 hours are thinking of bf babies?
I don't think big baby equals hungry baby.
Hungry baby equals hungry baby.
MsSparkle, babies stomachs and ability to digest food are the same regardless of what you feed them! For any baby of that age to go 4 hours between feeds is along time, I think, because their tummies are tiny. If they need more food due to a growth spurt, it's much easier on them to take small amounts often than to struggle with a huge belly full of milk at longer intervals.
Well lets put it this way, from 3am yesterday (tuesday) morning until 3am this morning, he had 38oz of milk in that 24 hour period. I think he is a hungry baby
The posters here have given you your opinion - it's up to you what you do, but you did ask!
Sorry i forgot to add, FairMidden he isn't taking little and often, he is taking a full 5oz often.
"I am afraid he might get really fat though"
As you're thinking of giving him the casein-based formula so that he'll feed less often, he's going to be getting fewer calories.
It's just more difficult to digest, not higher calorie.
All formulas used to be casein-based. They were changed to whey-based in an attempt to mimic more closely the protein composition of breast milk. The formula companies then found a niche in the market to continue selling the old composition as "hungry baby milk".
There is no evidence that hungry baby milk does actually "satisfy" babies. Many people feel that their babies are unsettled by the less modified formulation. It's your baby though, and you could always switch back I suppose.
Yes i did ask. But i was hoping for some consructive advice and some advice from people who have been in my position as to what they did. Telling me 4 hours is too long to go between feeds ins't constructive advice because as long as your baby is gaining weight and you aren't letting them cry until the 4 hours is up, it's not too long at all.
I have been in your position - I did use the hungry milk but it made no real difference (it was a growth phase at abotu 5 weeks and then again at about 9 weeks etc). The only difference I saw was that it made dd more constipated.
I just had to go with giving dd teh bottle 2 hours later when she needed it - the growth spurts ended after a few days/week and she went back to 4 hours between feeds - at about 12 weeks she had settled into 5 feeds a day .
and it didnt seem to make much odds re fat(she shot up from 50% to 95% at birth to six weeks then back down again).
and if you're looking at the standard advice and thinking is my baby a freak he has drunk that much so did I ...
oh and only other thing is I did try to leave 1.5 hr/2hr between feeds as dd got a bit frantic re feeding (can't really regulate then about how much to drink) so would cry, drink a load then vomit it all up again.. I found leaveing longer between feeds (letting her suck a muslin or my clean finger could help the wailing a bit).
"Telling me 4 hours is too long to go between feeds ins't constructive advice because as long as your baby is gaining weight and you aren't letting them cry until the 4 hours is up, it's not too long at all. "
Sorry but if this is the case why are you asking for advice?
I was about to post the same thing Libras.
We're only trying to answer your query! Sorry if you don't like the answer.
I hope this helps you:
Thanks poppy. I try giving him water between feeds or do what you said and let him suck my finger. Nothing is working today though. I fed him at 1.30pm and he is crying again, trying to eat his hands, sucking my finger franticly. I think it seems worse tday because my 2 year old has been a rat bag all morning and i have flu. I don't want to feed him again after only an hour as he throws it back up usually.
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.