...to think weighing newborns on day 3 undermines breastfeeding confidence?

[Nessalina]

My DD was born on Monday and weighed at home on day 3. She'd dropped from 7lb 3oz to 6lb 6oz, a 10.5% drop, which obviously triggered something for the midwife because she went into overdrive with how often we're feeding, wet & dry nappies etc. and I was told not to leave her more than 2hrs without a feed.
We're BFing, and my milk hadn't come in, so a drop was totally expected, and as her latch seems good and she was feeding/weeing/pooing often, I wasn't concerned, up until the midwifes visit that is. Day 3 also coincided with the baby blues hitting me, and I was quite weepy in the evening.
Anyway, my milk came in by the evening, and when she was reweighed on Day 5 she was back up to 7lb 1oz, so she's doing well, and I'm feeling good again.
I already BF my DS when he was born, so I guess I knew it was going to be fine, but I still felt super stressed and down by the whole process, not helped by sleep deprivation, swollen stitches, and very tender nipples.
So AIBU to think that weighing BF babies on day 3 is potentially damaging to mum's confidence in her ability to BF her child?
Is there a better way? Or was my midwife just lacking in empathy?

Neither of mine were weighed at day 3, only day 5 and 10 so I don't think it's a standard check?

I think the earlier the better too, so things can be picked up.

My first gained a pound when was weighed, my midwife couldn't believe it, but I was producing loads of milk.
First baby, stayed in bed a lot and ate loads of milk and Galaxy chocolate. My midwife was a big fan of Galaxy.
Didn't have the baby blues, she couldn't believe that either.

The point is, we're all different and it's better that they pre-empt problems if possible. They always said I was 'small for dates' and worried about the size of the baby. I'm 5'10", my baby isn't going to stick out as much as someone who is 5' 2". But they got into a flap about that. I thought they were worrying over nothing, but I'm still glad they were checking and doing their jobs.

And congratulations! A lovely newborn to cuddle.

Not a mother so my comment is easily dismissed - as beneficial as breastfeeding might be, surely that is secondary to the health and wellbeing of your baby?

My DD was 7lb 7.5oz at birth - it took over 3 weeks to get back to birth weight and she was EBF. We both had sepsis and were still in hospital on day 3 - DD had lost 15%. Drs & midwives all started getting very panicked about weight loss drop and NEEDING to start on formula and that clearly my milk wasn’t going to ever come in ect ect ect .... until one of them pointed out that I had been on a drip for for 12 hours during labour so DD would have had an ‘inflated birth weight’ due to all the extra fluids. Thank god someone mentioned it otherwise our BF journey would have been over at day 3 ... my milk came in on day 5.

surely it's better to have it checked than to go on thinking all is well...

I can't see how she lacked empathy...

I also can't see a "better way"...

Some midwives definitely lack empathy. Most are great but if you get the dodgy one on your first home visit post-birth, it's a disaster.

I realise you've posted because you want support, and that is great. But, your DD being weighed is about her best interests being met and whether you're breast feeding or not is irrelevant.

I'm afraid you're feelings and opinions have to come second. I'm sure you know that, but yes you may be feeling emotional with hormones bouncing all over.

Try to enjoy this special time with your little one and don't try to over analyse.

I had this discussion with my hv. He hated weighing as it just led to anxiety.

Numbers alone are meaningless. A healthy baby might have a big drop, or a poo before weigh in, a sick baby may be retaining fluid and appearing to gain weight.

His approach was to look at the entire baby. Skin colour, hydration, alertness, sleep, poo, wee. He said you could pick up a sick baby much more quickly than relying on scales.

So no, yanbu. If hv spent time looking at the baby and did a thorough exam there’d be a lot less panic.

Neither of mine were weight apart frim at birth.

YABVVVVVU. Babies are incredibly fragile when first born. There are so many things that can go wrong. That's why there are weight checks etc. A laissez faire attitude does no one any favours.

I've seen babies lose over 20% of their birth weight and be very, very, ill. They'd have been much better off if it had been picked up sooner, and wouldn't have ended up with lengthy hospital admissions.

The 10% isn't just because the maths is easy... There was a lovely paper about 10 years ago that showed that if you did something about it at 10% weight loss, then you didn't miss the babies with hypernatraemic dehydration*, although you stepped in earlier than many babies needed, whereas if you waited for a greater weight loss, then you had already missed quite a few babies that were actually already getting into trouble.

It's great that your feeding really sorted itself for you and your baby, but the midwife is following an evidence basis for trying to keep babies well and safe.

*That would be when the baby is starting to get sufficiently dehydrated that it is affecting the salt balance in their blood stream...and thus in their brain.

MerchantofVenice Sun 08-Oct-17 16:08:21
"I'm with you OP. Sometimes seems as if some of the midwives are so obsessed with their charts and figures that common sense goes out the window.

First mw to me visit with my first baby left me in tears after she insisted I had to express and cup-feed my baby. Ffs. Baby had lost about 10% but, surprise surprise, by the end of the first fortnight, baby was as bonny as could be."

That's nice for you, Merchant. Didn't happen for me, though: baby just went on losing weight until she was admitted to hospital. Bonny is not a word that could be used to describe the photos of her at 1 month old. I wish I had been put under more pressure to top up earlier. But fully accept that I was the one that didn't want to listen.

Wow, thanks for all the responses!! It looks like on balance IABU, and that it's better to ensure that the baby is ok at that stage and pick up problems sooner. I hadn't thought that issues like TT might get picked up and resolved sooner by an early weigh in.
On reflection and hearing some of your tales it sounds like my MW was more empathetic than I gave her credit for!
It is interesting to hear that 3 days is not standard for everywhere, and also very sensible that some regions use a different scale for BF and FF babies. I do feel it would be very beneficial for more research to be done in this area. Collating the data from the thousands of women MW around the country see every week would surely give a more up to date picture of what is really 'normal' in this day and age. I wonder how old the data is that informs the 10% cut off?

My DS lost 9% of his body weight by day 3 and the midwife panicked me and told me to go to a&e as he had jaundice as well. We went and they checked his jaundice and dehydration levels. The very kind paediatrician told us to just keep breastfeeding and that DS was fine.

In hindsight, if anyone had told me to supplement, I would have. But I am also grateful that they took my child's wellbeing so seriously. I wouldn't have wanted to imagine a scenario where I didn't get him checked out and he ended up seriously ill.

I am probably one of the lucky ones as I live in a very pro breastfeeding area.

DS is now 7 months old and we are still going strong on the breastfeeding front

I found this really difficult too OP. I think there should be two norms that babies are compared against, one for FF and one for BF.

Off topic, but does this vary? Only all my babies were weighed the day after coming home from hospital - in DS3 case this was the day after birth. He was a fatty and never lost any birth weight.

My HV was amazing. So supportive, but also not alarmist at all. My SIL, who lives about ten minutes away, her HV was from a different surgery. Because her baby was 'prem' (36+6) she advised her to supplement with hungry baby formula and then from age 1-2 with toddler milk. And she did. Because she was told to.

I was in hospital for 5 days after my emergency section and he wasn't weighed until just before we went home on Day 5.

In the Trust I work in babies are allowed to lose 12% of their body weight before needing to be admitted.

In other Trusts it is 14%

I do think that comparing bf babies weight at 3 days with the same age baby that is ff undermines bf from the start.

My milk didn't come in until day five or six and they had made me hand express and let a nurse syringe feed in the hospital rather than trying to help with DDs latch or positioning. Dd also lost 10.5% of her birthweight and we were told to take her to hospital immediately despite plenty of wet and dirty nappies, the midwife/hv made it sound far more serious than it was. They checked her for jaundice, which she had very mildly but the doctor told me to just keep feeding on demand, whereas the HV/midwife had already suggested 'topping up' with formula. Luckily my DM had had the exact same experience with me as a baby and reassured me that it was normal so I remained calm, but I've previously suffered terrible, crippling anxiety which was in my notes, so I think they should have taken that into account in how they handled it and put bf in a negative light from the off.

My twin girl lost 14% and was having phototherapy for jaundice on day 3 and my twin boy had lost 12% ((I expect this would have been more but we were already topping him up due to low blood sugars)
The weigh in highlighted they both needed top ups.. we did a three hourly feed and 24 hours later my girl had gone up to only 9 % loss and didn't need the phototherapy anymore! So for us it was a good positive move to get my babies sorted.. she had lost a whole pound which was quite frightening

Making sure a baby is feeding well, and isn't unwell or dehydrated is more important than trying not to affect a mother's confidence.

I see you've changed your mind a bit op. I agree with pps that while it's great to give mothers lots of confidence, it's much more important to make sure the baby is ok.

I had to insist on DD being weighed on day 4, (it was supposed to be day 5 where we lived), as I knew she wasn't feeding enough and was too quiet. She ended up in NICU for a week. We only went to hospital on the advice of the MW, who had weighed her and noticed how much she'd lost. I then fell seriously ill while we were looking after DD in NICU and had to be admitted too in another ward. I needed a fluid drip, both of us had IV antibiotics, lumbar puncture for DD etc etc.

It was lucky we were sent to hospital when we were I think and I don't think that would have happened if the MW didn't have the figures in front of her, showing how much weight DD had lost.

So, I think I'd prefer I think if babies were weighed on day 3 where I live. In fact I might ask if they'll do that for our next baby (due next January).

Hmm my baby was born at 8lbs 14oz and by day 3 she's was only 8lbs 13oz the midwife said how great that was "especially for a bf baby"

The guideline from the UNICEF baby friendly hospitals are to weigh at birth, day 5 & day 10 to prevent over weighing and worrying about weight gain by giving nature a chance to do it's thing. Weighing more frequently can absolutely undermine confidence.

Obviously there will be exceptions but generally it allows mums and babies a chance to recover from the birth and for the milk to come in. On day 3 newborns stomachs are still tiny & on mostly colostrum. Healthy term babies are born with brown fat to keep them going until the milk comes in, usually day 3-5.

Weighing too early can be detrimental to breastfeeding hence UNICEF is the gold standard, do YANBU!

I do think though if hcp are going to place such importance on weight they need to get some accurate scales!

Ime most aren’t even calibrated correctly so never weigh the same for anything. The standard error between two sets of scales can be huge.

They need quality digital scales, regularly calibrated and checked. 10% of 7lbs is only 0.7 lbs, a tiny amount to be pissing around balancing analogue weights on a scale.

When dd was weighed at birth they weighed her 3 times on the same scales, and got a significantly different number each time (more than 10% difference). In the end they picked the middle one. The hv scales were just as bad.

DS wasn't weighed until nearly a week after he was born. We'd just got home as well. He'd lost 12.5% so we were sent back in, the midwife didn't think there was a problem as he looked healthy but it was more than 10% so of we went.

After dire warnings about how serious the situation was (not actually backed up with any clear symptoms or anything) I was made to express after feeding him and the midwives would then try and get him to feed more - except he clearly wasn't hungry and would never take any of the extra - but I wasn't allowed to miss out on expressing so basically got no sleep and saw all the milk I expressed get poured away.

Day before we were discharged we were told he wasn't gaining weight quickly enough and we should consider formula. Next day he had suddenly gained the necessary weight (the figures did not add up) and we were discharged. The midwives suspected he'd been weighed wrong at birth, he had breathing problems so that was the focus rather then weighing him accurately. No idea if that was true, or how it explains the later measurements not making sense.

So I wish he had been weighed on day three. The hospital would also have known that he pretty much didn't feed until nearly 24 hours after he was born which obviously also had an impact. If they'd weighed him on day three then again before our first discharge they'd probably have seen his weight going up and we maybe could have avoided available rather distressing second week in hospital.