Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Infant feeding

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

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Heard on BBC tonight - new growth charts to be based on BF babies...

37 replies

pupuce · 23/04/2006 21:18

Now that's news !
So when the change will happen no clue... the specialist on TV said that they now know it is best for babies not to grow too fast (which bottlefed babies tend to do) and that the standard growth should be based on breastfed based !!!!
Bet many BF mums will be relieved that their babies are fine and not too small!
Now who wants to bet that once this is in place we get to hear how many babies are overweight/obese

OP posts:

arfy · 23/04/2006 21:20

thing is, my DD was totally breastfed and always above the 91st centile (and 98th for height). Now she'll look even more humungous!

it is good news though

Caligula · 23/04/2006 21:20

About time too that's great news.

Will flummox most of the HV's in the country though, there'll be a need for mass counselling.

MerlinsBeard · 23/04/2006 21:20

why can't they do 2 charts? and just give you the one thats appropriate?

MMisStruggling · 23/04/2006 21:21

my DS was BF and was HUGE
family said I was overfeeding

my DD was BF and is very slight and suprisingly had no comments on her wEight

we will never win

fastasleep · 23/04/2006 21:22

There aren't going to be two charts because I guess it's not natural for the Ffed babies to be as large as some of them are...

futurity · 23/04/2006 21:23

same here arfy...DS2 was fully breastfed and the same readings as you..he is now 14 months and weighs 2 stone (DS1 weighed that at 2 years old!)

lahdeedah · 23/04/2006 21:28

same here arfy and futurity, my DD was fully breastfed until 9 months and always right at the top of the chart - off the chart now actually at 12 months, she was 28lbs at the last weigh-in. I was the same apparently, and also fully breastfed. Where does that leave us? It must be mostly down to genetics surely??

lahdeedah · 23/04/2006 21:31

also - I remember tiktok saying the current charts are based on a sample of both breast-fed and formula-fed babies?? I am confused now.......!

beetle73 · 23/04/2006 21:31

Snap Arfy, Futurity and Ldd.

arfy · 23/04/2006 21:32

yes I remember Tiktok saying that too

DD (16 months) hasn't been weighed for ages now because I know she's still going to be huge - she looks like a 2 year old really.

expatinscotland · 23/04/2006 21:33

As if I ever paid attention to anything the HV or GP said.

Our present HV should have been an investigative journalist, she's such an annoying busybody.

The last time I was at the GP his jacket fell off the door as I was leaving and a copy of The Sun folded over to page 3 fell out of his pocket. Like I'd ever turn to him for breastfeeding advice. Creep.

MumtoBen · 23/04/2006 21:34

I b/f for 6 months and baby was above 75th centile. He would also be massive on a new chart. He grew from the 2nd centile when he was born to the 75th centile at 12 weeks, purely on breast milk. The HVs were a bit shocked at the rate he was growing, but what was I supposed to do, limit his breastfeeding? Impossible as he screamed until b/f resumed! His height is above 75th centile so surely if his weight is on 75th centile that is OK?

hunkermunker · 23/04/2006 21:36

The way I read it is that the WHO want the charts only to be based on bfed babies - they want that to be "the norm", whereas the ones in use now contain a huge variety of babies - bfed, ffed, mixed fed, etc.

Not sure how I feel about that - since not all babies are bfed in this country by a long way.

Perhaps better would be to train HVs in bfeeding and give them some idea of weight gain patterns for the bfed infant.

DS1 born on 75th and stayed there for 12 weeks, before his slow steady drop to the 25th where he stayed till he was nearly two - now he's on the 50th. DS2 born on 50th, climbed to 75th almost immediately and has stayed there since - 13wo now. Having him weighed tomorrow and interested to see if he's still there or if the descent through the chart will begin for him soon!

arfy · 23/04/2006 21:38

I don't know why I put that it was good news

I agree with HM on following patterns. the slavish adherence to the charts by some really (ha ha) gets on my tits.

hunkermunker · 23/04/2006 21:39

EIS - yuck re page 3!

I think babies often find their own level - so many things can affect birthweight (in my case it was query diabetes in first pg and definite diabetes in second pg) - think HVs need to look more at how the baby is - alert, learning new things, etc and have less hang-up over a set weight gain each week.

Caligula · 23/04/2006 21:39

Expat you always meet the most choice members of the medical profession!

JoolsToo · 23/04/2006 21:43

pardon me for going on about 'the good old days' but we never had bloomin centiles whatever they are - you went and got your baby weighed and took advice from there, come to think of it - do you need scales to tell you if your baby is overweight? (or under, which is probably unlikely in the UK). From what I hear those charts can cause unnecessary worry to some parents.

The only thing I recall is that all my kids had to have clothes 'ages' smaller than they were but then when they got to be teenagers - whoosh! up they went

lahdeedah · 23/04/2006 21:44

agree that there should be less reliance on charts and more focus on the individual child - better training, as you say HM.

I can't see that there is a norm for breastfed babies - that they are smaller than formula-fed. As the posts on this thread illustrate, many breastfed are very large - it seems crazy to label them as obese! My DD isn't even that chubby, she is just very long and just, well, BIG!

suzi2 · 23/04/2006 21:51

My DS is between the 25th and 50th. Which would seem "less than average". but he's almost dropped off the charts for height so in fact he's quite a chubby thing! My HV can't seem to see that though... and thinks he should eat more. I think she should be fired as she obviously hasn't any sense. Since when should a healthy, almost average weight baby eat more? Especially since he is little!

I think that having access to more appropriate charts would be a good thing to reassure mums whose babies are at the bottom end of the normal charts. But I can't see that they would make a difference. HVs should be banned from commenting on a babys weight if there is no problem.

hunkermunker · 23/04/2006 21:53

Yes, this is something that pisses me off no end - there's never any "ooh, careful, steady on" stuff with babies on the 91st centile (and nor should there be!) but there's often "OMG, your baby's going to shrivel up and turn into a mouse" if they're on the 2nd.

And who was it who had the HV who said that "all babies should aim to be on the 50th" - real mathematical genius that one!

JoolsToo · 23/04/2006 21:55

throw the bloody 'centile' book out you don't need it!

sounds like bloody Chinese to me!

madrose · 23/04/2006 22:02

My HV didn't believe that my DD maintained her 91st percentile for 4 months on BF alone. Then when she started to slip down the charts (still being BF) my HV showed quite a bit of concern, which worried me, even though I knew the charts were based on formula babies, but there were some sensible HV's who said it was normal and that she was fine and not to think about the charts so much.

hunkermunkfish · 23/04/2006 22:03

JT, agree totally, btw!

Caligula · 23/04/2006 22:12

My first HV (who was one of the rare wonderful ones) told me to completely ignore the charts and to stop coming to the clinic to weigh DS.

"Unless you're worried about him, don't come. Thre's really no point, it's just one more things for first time mums to worry about. You won't bother with your second."

How right she was.

suzi2 · 23/04/2006 22:12

hunker - my hv hasn't said that but I know that's what she's thinking. At last weigh in, DS had put on 4oz in 4 wks. I thought that was fine now that he is mobile. She said "I think he's down 3 or 4 percent". How is a comment like that helpful to anyone???

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread