Follow-on milk

10 replies

Haily111 · 21/12/2006 18:04

Hello, i changed my dd onto Aptamil Forward (2) as my HV advised that this was the way forward. Now i have read some threads on here that suggest follow on milk isnt that good. Shall i put her back onto number one or is the number two not as bad as number three? And also wouldnt that play havoc with her digestive system (she has been on it a number of weeks now)? AND why are there follow on milks if everyone is against them ?
Thank you

OP posts:

merrylissiemas · 21/12/2006 18:06

follow on's just aren't as rich as normal formula to allow for weaning and to prevent baby staying too reliant on milk for food. i don't think it makes that much difference, how old is dc?

Original poster

Haily111 · 21/12/2006 18:10

They aren't as rich? So in theory she should be back on number one? Sorry i just find it all very confusing! She is 29 weeks old.

OP posts:

LIZS · 21/12/2006 18:10

Follow ons are not deemed to be Infant milks and therefore the brand names can be advertised, and by association the "related" infant milk. In some instances it works out cheaper, ml for ml, but nutritionally the added iron for instance isn't that digestible for a baby and can cause constipation etc so not of much benefit.

MrsBadger · 21/12/2006 18:10

all depends how old she is - if >12mo and having a balanced diet in every other direction she can have full-fat cows' milk (much cheaper than powdered stuff).

Follow-on milk is really just a moneyspinner for formula manufacturers as they're legally not allowed to advertise 'infant formula' for babies but can advertise follow-on milk, growing-up milk etc.

merrylissiemas · 21/12/2006 18:14

mrsb's right, i used follow on for a week or 2 with ds and went back to formula coz he didn't like it

Original poster

Haily111 · 21/12/2006 18:15

So in short shall i swap her back to number one? But i am worried i will do her more harm than good! What do you think?

OP posts:

MrsBadger · 21/12/2006 18:16

whoops, cross-posted

at 29 weeks she can have either - must confess that whichever is cheaper would be my first concern as nutritionally I can't see that there'd be a huge benefit to swapping to 'Forward'.

LIZS · 21/12/2006 18:17

It won't harm her to be on infant milk until 12 months. Presumably she is being weaned onto a solid diet now too which provides vitamins and minerals.

tiktok · 21/12/2006 18:20

Nothing to do with being 'rich' or not....if by that you mean more calories. The calorie content is about the same. The protein in follow on is less 'modifed' than standard formula, and the iron content is higher. None of that makes it any more nutritious than standard formula.

It's a bit cheaper than standard formula.

It's all marketing - and it works, 'cos HVs recommend it and mothers think it's 'richer'

Original poster

Haily111 · 21/12/2006 18:22

This is what i thought Tiktok.

Also she is on 3 solids a day now.

To be fair i don't really mind the financial side (am not rich by any means) as long as my dd is getting what she needs...

OP posts:

Flip