WHO Growth Charts being "debated"

[aragon]

Just read that the WHO growth charts for breastfed babies are being debated for introduction in Britain. As a HV I am delighted that they are at long last debtaing the introduction. I WANT THEM INTRODUCED. They show that breastfed babies are generally lighter than bottlefed babies but are still a very healthy weight. Less of midwives and HVs (or doctors) saying "Oh the weight's tailed off - introduce top ups/wean early".

Join my wish?

Message withdrawn

But HVs have to use what the DoH tells them to use don't they?

Personally I'd love them to be introduced asap. Ds's weight dropped from the 75th to just above the 50th centile at around 4mo and I'm convinced it was because the charts weren't for bfed babies. His weight followed a smooth curve and he stayed v content.

Nevertheless, the deputy HV kept going on at me about was I sure ds was getting enough hindmilk? So I stopped getting him weighed .

the problem here is that you're assuming that HVs and GPs actually read, digest, understand and pass-on updated information

weaning at 6 months anyone?

My wonderful (genuinely! ) HV started talking to me about starting dd on solids when she was just over 4m. The first she heard of the new 6m guidelines was right then from me! Being a sensible woman, she didn't poo-poo me or pressurise me. A month or so later she phoned me to tell me that she had received new guidelines: to start solids at 6m. Also that as a result of our conversation she had done a bit of research herself, and found that that was indeed the new WHO recommendaton.

Ironic really, that those who are supposed to guide parents get the information so much later than everyone else.

How can we access the 'new' bf growth charts?

The problem isn't the charts. It's the way they're used.

Your HV still sounds slow on the uptake, Pretty.

The solids guidance was 4-6 months for a long time, so 6 mths was included in that window. It was never successfully adopted by health visitors who mostly told mothers to start at 16 weeks (which isn't even 4 mths anyway). Then in May 2003 the guidance was officially changed in the UK to 6 mths. All the professional organisations were informed at the time.

Anyone whose specialism includes infant feeding (and that includes every HV) would have been aware of the fact that this was coming, and that most other western countries had adopted 6 mths years before.

More detailed guidance came out at the beginning of 2005, which included a lot of information about how solids at 6 mths does not mean babies don't learn to talk and chew and other stupid myths.

Aragon (I miss your initial capital letter, btw ), I agree the charts should be introduced, but I would like to see it done as part of a massive overhaul of the training HVs (and GPs and paediatricians and midwives) receive into bfeeding support and the development of a bfed baby.

Perhaps then, the charts would be secondary to ensuring that the baby was developing well, alert, content, etc - taken as part of a child's growth pattern, not the desperate slavish desire for all children to maintain a fictional centile line (which some do, it must be said - DS2 is pretty much a "just above 50th centile" baby with early foray into 75th - DS1 was v different and dropped from 75th to just above 9th).

And perhaps then, HVs wouldn't be so quick to mention the "f" word to new mums and totally undermine bfeeding. I SO want to write "the fuckers" now...

Oh, oh, oh and perhaps there'd also be less "well, if you have to wait till six months to wean, I suppose that's OK, but make sure that your baby is eating three full meals a day plus snacks by the end of the week after they're 6mo or mad scary things will occur" talk from these largely ill-informed busybodies.

(I shoulda parped, right?)

(present company notwithstanding, Aragon - you know that, right? )

I'll shut up now, shall I?

For now...

I leap to the defence of my HV, Tiktok, as she was brilliant for me and my family, hugely supportive, intelligent and full of common sense. If she spent her time supporting her patients so comprehensively, and therefore had less time to read all the bumf that was sent to her, then that's fine by me. Not only did she not encourage me to start solids at 16w, though I had that with my previous HV, but she reminded me, at about that time, that 16w is not 4m, so please to delay a little longer.

And, in any case, this happened in April 03, and I got that phone call from her in May 03!

(BTW, I've not taken offence.)

She may well have been great in all sorts of ways, PrettyCandles, but not in this one.

It was never '4 mths' but '4 to 6 mths'. I still think only knowing about this in May 2003 was slow off the mark - anyone whose job it is to advise and support mothers in infant feeding should have known about the new (or should I say 'new' 'cos it really wasn't...) before her clients informed her of it.

Having said that, she was streets ahead of many other HVs!!

Do you think that HVs interpreted the 4-6m stuff as "start at 4mo and have them on steak and chips by 6mo" Tiktok?

Would explain the "get food down your baby's neck for fear of bad things happening" stuff they mostly seem to preach these days.

Well, if they did interpret it as the weaning period rather than the window for a start date, they were not justified in doing so! The guidelines were crystal clear. No one knows where the '16 weeks' thing came from, either.

16wks comes from people assuming that a month is 4 weeks long. I've heard that from many people over issues that were nothing to do with feeding, pregnancy, etc. Come to think of it, I've heard pregnant women insisting that pregnancy actually lasts 10 months because of that calculation!

Aragon, I join your wish. I also had a wonderful HV in terms of being caring, concerned and avalailbe, but who insisted I bottlefeed, wean onto solids asap, eat truckloads of food to improve the quality of my milk etc because dd was a dinky doo. She has sent me to A&E one week because dd lost, rather than put on, weight during one of her weekly weighings.

Out of interest, are practising HVs required to regularly update their training? I know doctors and lawyers etc have a professional requirement to. Just wondering what happens with HVs.

Yep! HVs and midwives etc are supposed to show evidence that they've updated everytime they re-register - every three years. However, this "updating" can take any form of relevant course - so they can actually get away with never looking at the research around breastfeeding in any formal way after their training - it's shocking.

At present - as far as I can see - everyone pays lip service to supporting breastfeeding without actually putting any resources in place to ensure that those offering "support" know what they are doing and advising.

Personally I'd like to see mandatory updating in key areas - such as breastfeeding so that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. There's a wide variation in the interpretaion of weaning research too.

It makes things very confusing for us Mums (and I include myself here as I am totally unable to look at DS in any detached way which is why he got fed and fed at 6 weeks even though the "sensible" side of my brain could see he had colic and was screaming at me not to give him more milk) My HV? Said "Oh he's a big boy - you may have to top him up" and at 13 weeks - "he's almost doubled his birthweight - it'd be worth introducing baby rice". Aaaaaagggghhhh!

blueshoes, changing the charts will not make an iota of difference to HVs who behave like yours.

blueshoes - just read your post again and am shocked.

great news, although i'm in ireland and at her 14 month check up when dd weighed in quite light for her age the doctor was very quick to reassure me that babies bf for longer are usually lighter and that it wasn't a concern. didn't even know that til she said it!