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

[pupuce]

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

Say "Oh, shit, is this the beginning of turning into Stuart Little?" to her next time she makes such a daft-arse comment

PMSL - she also said he needs to grow more length ways. I told her I was already stretching him every morning and that ge was sleeping in a grobag but she didn't find me amusing

my mainly f feed baby has always been on the 9th percentile - so am I to believe that he's really underwirght then for a f feed baby?

Oh well, too blaise to care now :o

HOW do they expect us to make them grow in length?!

They never take into account the parents' height or natural build either IME.

\link{http://www.net-monster.com/stuart.jpg\Mind you, if your child does start to look like this, do feel free to crap yourself}

mmm I've noticed that some HV (not all some are lovely) have had a sense of humour bypass - like mine! either that or I'm just not funny

(Yes, want to say that my HV is lovely)

OMG!!!!!!!!! How did you get hold of a photo of my DS??? Mind you, he's a handsome chap just like his dad.

My lot were all little & bf, in fact all of there charts look the same, a big spurt in the first month (up to 75th centile), a slowing down (to the 50th) and then a plummeting through the centiles around 4-6 months (to about 12th)

I've had many a HV fretting over it, do't know why I get them weighed TBH, although I have a love for stats so that probably has something to do with it.

I'd love to get hold of a 'new' chart and compare to my lot's plotted line, but then I am a numbers nerd :)

Aw Suzi :) my ds (4) is on the 0.4 centile for his height, but that's what you get from coming from a family of Irish leprachauns and hooking up with a Welsh midget

Those Bloody red books! My ds was breastfed and is massive-something to do with his parents height i guess,6ft 4 and 5ft 11

BBC news tonight explained that UK charts are based on babies including formula fed babies'. In the UK the data sets used to compile the charts have no differentiation between method of feeding - ie there are breastfeds, formula feds, mixd feds, early solids, all in the mix.

Anyone can read more info in their own red book - the provenance of the charts is explained, and I think they come from about eight data sets. Our charts (UK ones) are fairly recent - again you'll see a date in the book, and from memory it's early 90s.

The newspaper report I have seen does not make any of this clear. It is confusing the situation here with the one in the US, where charts may well be based on formula fed babies and for all I know, may be old charts, as well.

The weight difference between breastfed and formula fed babies starts at about 3-4 months, but it is only really seen after the first six months or so, and it is then that mothers can be particularly misled by ill-informed HPs and others.

I've said before, the real 'problem' with charts is that they are badly interprted (at any age) and the 'whole baby' is not looked at. It's just as bad to totally ignore a chart as it is to make it the sole factor in an assessment. It's part of a picture.

aren't these charts just such a load of crap though? so long as a baby is alert, weeing, pooing and content, surely all is well?