Am I martyring Dd?

[Gem754]

Okay, help me here please....

I had been solely breastfeeding Dd for the first 8 weeks of her life. She never settled very well and I was forced to get a dummy to get her to sleep. I was feeding her for approx half an hour every 3 - 4 hours.

Last Tues she had her 8 week check-up and the Doctor said she was approx a pound under weight, although both her length and head circumfrance are both on track. He suggested swaping a couple of her feeds for fomula, which I have done.

Since then I've noticed how much more contented she is after these feeds. She no longer needs her dummy to get off to sleep at night, I can leave her playing in her bouncer while I get on with the housework ect... But she is very fractious after taking the breast. Yesterday I fed her for an hour, both breasts, but 2 hours later she was screaming with hunger, and this seems to be ben=coming the norm.

Am I drying up? Am I martyring Dd to the breastfeeding cause? Is there anyway I can still give her breastmilk but get her satisfied aswell?

Thanks, Gem

Your experience sounds very similar to mine. My dd lost a little weight and I was advised to swap to ff. As a new mum, I was absolutely crapping it as I was worried about dd - and took the advice -so stopped bf at 10 weeks. Still regret this - but in hindsight - and too late to bf again as dd is nearly 14 months!

I am due to have dd2 in Jan/Feb and intend to bf for longer and have got 'knowledged up'/been on a bf course by La Leche League etc - so this time will ignore HVs if I need too!

Don't forget, those bl**dy weight charts are based on ff babies. I wish I had just thought that dd was happy, was sleeping well and did plenty of nappies - and ignored the advice.

This time around I don't intend to supplement with formula as reduced bf will reduce the milk supply - unless you express. HTH

Good news, Gem.
Just to correct this persistent myth about weight charts: the ones in the UK are not 'based on formula fed babies. They are from data collected from a huge range of babies, fed formula alone, breast alone, mixed, early solids, with no differentiation. They are a pretty accurate way of tracking the growth of a population, but as a reflection of what an individual baby (any baby) 'ought' to weigh, they have limitations, and their sensible use depends on having health professionals who understand that weight and growth are only one aspect of a baby's well-being.

This is what is 'wrong' with them - the way they're used. The data in them is fine, In any case, breastfed babies grow more or less the same as formula fed babies (v. slightly faster, in fact) in the first months, and it's only thereafter the differential increases, with formula fed babies at a year typically being slightly heavier than breastfed babies.

That's very interesting tiktok - never knew that. My hv is under the impression they are based on formula-fed babies too.

Gem, had something similar with my first son who was born at 5 lb 5 ox and dropped off a pound so was told to give up BF by HV, I did. Same thing happened with DS2, I hung on for 4 months then gave up also. Between then and having ds3 I did a BF course with Unicef for work, when DS3 was boen weight dropped again even more I think in fact. Got referred to Paeds, nothing wrong, hassled by HV and DID not give up. fed him until 15 months, and he is now an exceptionally healthy little man, much more settled than the other two ever were TBH. It turned out that DS1 had other problems, including AS and lactose intolerance that influenced his feeding / my ability to feed him, but DS2 had none and it was sheer panic that stopped me there. DS3 has the lactose intol but none of the eczma, asthma, allergies that the others seem to share.

Giving up feeding DS1 was the right thing to do as he was so low in birthweight and I was pretty ill after that PG anyway and I don't think my health needed it. However, giving up feeding DS2 was completely unnecessary and we should never have been advised to do that. Unless your LO has health issues we don't know of that wold make weight gain significant (eg low birth weight) I would keep on BF if that's what you want 9and it is personal preference). Look at your family- the Paeds took histories off us from which we realised that the weight issue goes back generations, inlaws are all skinny. genetics is as important in weight gain as anything else. And if you're not confident, get in a BF counsellor: they're fab.

Miaou - shame your HV doesnt know her stuff

The origins of the charts are written in the parent held child health record - read the small print in the section on growth and it lists them. No suggestion they are based on anything but a wide mix of babies.

Where does the myth come from that growth charts are based on formula-fed babies then?

I'm really lucky my HV wants to support me. As son as I told her what the Doc had advised she advised me against it.

I know what you meab about family histories PPF, my sister is a bean pole. My Dad was too when he was young (now more barrel) so Dd's just lucky she's got that gene, I was it had been more active in me.

Dd already quite settled back on the breast again, and I feel much better that she's getting what's best for her.

actually tiktok et al you might be interested to know that the very latest red books (child health records) have charts for bf babies only. dd2 was born on 13/11 and her red book has a bf only chart.

it is still relevant though
the charts show the average and on average a bttlefed baby will out on more weight than a breastfed one
so a bf baby will tend to look more like there is a "problem" because they are "below average"
hence a breastfed only chart is s useful corrective

The breastfed from birth charts are not in all books - most PCTs in the UK do not accept them as useful, and some experts are not happy about their use. They are not very different from standard charts - check them out! The differential only really starts after the first few months.