Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Original poster

Those centile charts in the red book

29 replies

SoupDragon · 01/03/2006 19:00

If they are really based on formula fed infants, why has my excl. bf DD jumped from 75th centile for weight at birth to 91st in 3 weeks?? wtf would she be on if plotted on a breast fed chart?? DSs were similar so it's not inaccurate scales.

Can you over feed a breast fed baby??

OP posts:
Tinker · 01/03/2006 19:02

Think it's a myth that only based on breastfed one. Am sure they are based on all but as babies get older, less people breastfeed so they become overly weighted by bottlefed babies.

Yours is just a greedy little dragon Wink

Twiglett · 01/03/2006 19:03

dragon's milk .. full of nutritious fats

Original poster
SoupDragon · 01/03/2006 19:23

I can only hope she doesn't continue to be a porker into her teens.

OP posts:
starlover · 01/03/2006 19:23

someone has to be right up there! what is she for height?

Original poster
SoupDragon · 01/03/2006 19:24

not sure but I'm guessing average!!

OP posts:
Fauve · 01/03/2006 19:30

The continuation of your thread title is:

Those centile charts in the red book...

are a load of boll**cks

IMHO

Original poster
SoupDragon · 01/03/2006 19:48

I agree, up to a point... people usually complain about them being wrong for bf bbies because they don't put on weight in the same way as bottle fed infants. Which means I've clearly given birth to an elephant.

OP posts:
Socci · 01/03/2006 19:52

I don't think you can overfeed a bf baby, personally - nature would have it correct imo.

lummox · 01/03/2006 19:53

I got worried about this. But I think that kellymom says that the charts are based on bottle fed babies who put on less weight rather than more in a particular period shortly after birth. Sorry - I'm too lazy to look it up but it was the opposite to what I had thought (which was that it was bottlefed babies that were the early Bunters).

ds was born on the fiftieth for weight and height. Excl bfed until 5.5 months when he was a shade above the 100th for both. At 9 months he is still a shade above for both.

I posted a thread asking whether it was definitely true that you can't overfeed a bfed baby and everyone said you couldn't. Which made me happy so I decided it must be true.

lua · 01/03/2006 19:57

Hi Soupy,
I was worried about the same thing recently. The same happened to my DS. Born 50%, jumped to 90%. Stayed there until around 6 months and then has come down the lines. I did some research, and I believe this is the usual pattern. Something about the way babies can start by using breast milk much better in the beggining so they gain faster, but then as theirdigestive systems catch up, ff babies start gaining more. Also, there is a higher probaility of "over feeding" with formula....

MerlinsBeard · 01/03/2006 19:59

Thing is, your baby hasn't seen those centiles so doesn't klnow what weight he/she is supposed to be. IMO if your baby is putting on weight sometimes and is feeding well and us generally well, then there is nothing to worry about.

I am by no means a professional but those charts are a cause of worry that new parents could do without!

teacups · 01/03/2006 20:02

I think Tiktok posted a few weeks ago on the charts and said that they weren't based on bottlefed babies exactly, just that people don't know how to read them..... I am paraphrasing hopelessly and I am sure she will be along to correct me Blush but I think it was something along those lines. I don't htink you can overfeed a BF baby. I wonder if babies just take a while to find their natural proportions.

My dd was 9lb 13 (98th centile) when born and then slowly fell down the centiles until now (11 months)when she is about 60th. She is still tall but quite slim (with an enormous tummy!). Both DH and I are tall and fairly slim (although I too sport a less than washboard stomach). If your dd is now big, it is probable that she is going through a spurt and will settle to her normal position later based on your and your DP's build etc.

Either that or the dragon's blood thing is true Grin!

KenningtonKitty · 01/03/2006 20:59

My DD was 91st when born and now, age 3.5 is 25th (tall skinny minny -like her father used to be !) She was proper "bonny" until she started moving and then she dropped the chubby - I would be delighted she is thriving....

kama · 01/03/2006 21:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mandymac · 01/03/2006 21:15

DD did this too, about 70th at birth and then up to the 91st centile within a month or so. HV described her as a great example of a thriving breastfed baby. She was into her 3-6 month sleepsuits at about 2 months too, but her growth must have slowed (haven't had her weighed since last immunisations at 5 months Grin), as she is still in them at 8 months. Well done you for your obviously very successful breastfeeding Smile.

tiktok · 01/03/2006 21:43

They are not based on formula fed babies! I say this roughly once a month on mumsnet!!

Kellymom says they are but that's because Kellymom is a US site and they use different charts in the US.

The charts in the UK are perfectly respectable and based on several data sets of many, many babies, some of whom are bf, some are formula fed and some are early solids and some are a mix....there is no differentiation.

The 'breastfed from birth' charts differ hardly at all in the first weeks and months. The smallish gap between breast and bottle only really shows later. It's not true that breastfed babies are generally slighter and gain more slowly. Some babies gain really quickly - soup, you have a wonderfully generous milk supply and babies who gain quickly which is normal for them.

The problem with charts is, indeed, the way they are used.

Oh, and no. you can't overfeed a bf baby :)

hnl · 02/03/2006 10:41

I'm new here - hello everyone. My red book has the "old" centile charts but the hv told me that the charts were based averages from 20 years ago when the majority of babies were bottle fed. She gave me transparent overlay charts to stick in the book, specifically for bf babies, and there is quite significant difference. On the old charts my lo is just below the 25th centile but on the bf charts he's on the 50th. My friend who lives in a different health authority area was given a choice of red books - ff or bf. No wonder people are confused!

tiktok · 02/03/2006 10:53

hnl, your HV is wrong. You can read this for yourself as the data sets used in the charts are referenced in the book. I think many of the data sets come from the mid-90s.

In any case, even if it was 20 years ago (which it isn't!), babies were breastfed only very slightly less than they are today.

The overlays she has given you are probably 'thrive lines' which give a better indication of a baby's progress - I don't think they ar specifically for breastfed babies, unless some new ones have come out.

Whatever, it sounds as if your baby is doing just fine!

r3dh3d · 02/03/2006 11:02

Tik, there are specific charts for UK bf babies now out - from the same people as do the charts in the red book. Have you seen these, or any comment on their usefulness?

tiktok · 02/03/2006 11:51

I know about them, and some PCTs have bought them for use in their areas. Some of the professional organisations are not happy with them (eg the Royal College of Child Health). Reason: the sample is tiny and very localised - the results come from 120 (!) babies from the Cambridge Infant Growth Study.

In fact, they don't differ all that much from the existing standard charts until the babies are older, but I think they probably have a role to play then, as that is where there starts to be a gap between breastfeds and formula feds.

If we do have a routinely-used breastfed only chart, we need it to come from more than 120 babies, and we need those babies to come from all over and to have a wide ethnic mix.

I have heard of mothers of young, small/slow to gain babies trying to get hold of these charts in the hope they will 'prove' their babies are growing normally. Well, of course, they won't do any such thing...and even if they did, it's the way charts are used that is at fault, not the charts themselves.

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 02/03/2006 12:32

Soupy - DS2 did that (although addmittedly bottlefed Shock). jumped up nearly 40 centiles between birth and 2 weeks.

hunkermunker · 02/03/2006 12:38

SD, DS2 has done similar - gone from 50th to 75th. Both DSs gained an average of 10oz a week in the early weeks.

Either I have loads of milk, or he's sneaking downstairs to eat cream horns in the night.

HRHQueenOfQuotes · 02/03/2006 12:39

but OTTH DS1 - breastfed - followed both his graphs perfectly.

lahdeedah · 02/03/2006 12:42

Same here - my DD was exclusively breastfed - born on 75th centile, jumped up to 99th two weeks later, and has stayed thereabouts ever since! She's now a very healthy, if large, 11 month old.

acnebride · 02/03/2006 12:48

i was given new charts when ds was 11 wks, which Sally Inch at the JR said were exclusive bf ones (must be the Cambridge ones).

ds's weight loss when transferred over looked much scarier on the bf charts! so didn't bother looking at them again.

tiktok, if i ever get pregnant again i am going to re read every thread you have ever posted on!