follow on milk...should i put ds on it?

[lonelymumof3]

Ds is 6 months old today!!! He much prefers his solids to milk, though he wont eat yogurts. He has about 3-4 6oz feeds a day. Does he need to be on follow on milk? Is it better for iron? I want to make sure he gets enough, and as he doesnt seem to have an awful lot of milk, I wondered if he would be better on follow on milk? I can't remember ds1 ever being on it, and I can't remember what stage I put dd on it.

There have been lots of threads about this. It is a marketing ploy by the companies to advertise themselves as they are not allowed to advertise the normal formula. There is no nutritional reason for it, it is purely a marketing tactic. Some people use it anyway, others not.

nope - i asked this on another thread recently, altho there is a bit more iron in follow on milk, apparently babies can't actually process the extra iron anyway, so it's a bit irrelevant. apparently there is very little difference between follow on milk, and follow on is a bit of a con anyway - formula companies don't need to be as careful with marketing it as it's not seen as a breast milk substitute

No need at all. Do a search for follow-on milk threads.

I agree with the others. My HV said not to bother with it at all. My dh bought it by mistake one week and it made my dd constipated so I am staying well clear.

my HV said something different, that it contained more iron and it was less calorific so they start to eat more food than milk. Lord knows if its true though. I've used it and my son has never been constipated.

If its a marketing ploy how comes it the same price or cheaper than the normal baby milk? Or do you mean a marketing ploy that targets b/f women?

i thought it had more iron in it as well (sorry....im lonelymumof3 with new name!!!)

They can advertise it so getting their brand known.

I got told to put dd on it at 12mths rather than cows milk as she needed the extra calories due to her low weight gain... She has/had a small tummy, apparently more cals per oz in follow on than normal cows milk, but had it not been for that I'd never have bothered, sure it is marketing con...
I breastfed up to 15 mths, but gave FO milk as an additional drink from 12 mths and as full milk from 15 mths to 18 mths, when she went onto medical nutritional supplement

They cant absorb the extra i believe. Again, a marketing ploy to justify it.

but dairy inhibits iron absortion so its all relative, i stuck dd onto liver casserole at 8 mths and spinach just to be sure... in case breastmilk wasn;t firing the iron through!
LOL

Isnt bm iron easier to absorb though?

Breastmilk iron is more bioavailable to the baby - hat there is is processed better by the baby's body. Follow on has more iron relative to cows milk but for some babies it acts to bung them up - that's what excess iron does (ever had iron tablets as an adult? they have the same effect on some people).

Jane - what your HV said is poppycock....as you suspect The calorie value is more or less the same in follow on as in regular (about 65 kcal per 100 ml with slight diffs between brands only).

hat there is = what there is

wasn't hv tiktok
it was paediatric dietitian LOL

It was the HV who spoke to Jane, Piffle....see message below - told her follow on had fewer cals than regular formula.

The calorie value of follow on, regular formula and cows milk is the same (I've just checked in the text books).