Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Infant feeding

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

Original poster

It's official - HV's weight charts are for bottle fed babies and not breastfed ones!

64 replies

aloha · 23/01/2005 18:12

Very interesting article in The Observer today about a new study that finds that breastfed babies are meant to be lighter than bottlefed babies - that the weight charts are all wrong and that actually babies benefit from being lighter than the charts say. Hooray - an end to the tyranny of the HV's scales (yeah, right!).
I hope someone can do a link.
Oh, and I post this as the mother of a chubby toddler so it's not having a go at mothers of chubsters.

OP posts:
pootlepod · 23/01/2005 19:42

I found out and rang a number by which you could ask for the breastfeeding charts to be sent to you. The lady there said she wishes they used these as the normal ones anyway as most HV only get concerned if babies are under the 50th centile, and it would be better to 'set the target' lower and for more babies to be seen as thriving IYSWIM
(It's a while ago so I probably haven't cited it as it was said, and the use of the word target isn't the best but I'm too tired to think of a better word)
Was never brave enough to replace mine in the red book, but agree the HV should have access to them and use them where needed.
Incidentally, my HV never took too much notice of the centiles, and my LO was up and down the 25th one all the time.

HunkerMunker · 23/01/2005 19:43

But it's statistically impossible for all babies to be on the 50th centile or above...however they're fed.

kymbo · 23/01/2005 19:50

Yes Gobbledigook, thats what I thought! DD is also bottlefed and on the 9th centile,although healthy as always!
I really think those centile charts should be taken with a pinch of salt.They are there for a reason,but I'm not sure what......

lockets · 23/01/2005 19:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

paolosgirl · 23/01/2005 19:56

I think they're there so that HV's can use them to panic new mums. Cue sharp intake of breath, patronising smile and "I think we'll (we'll???) just get the doctors to have a little look." Completely ignoring your protestations and assurances that your baby is bright, alert, feeding well and doing all the other things they're 'supposed' to do. HV rant over - deep breath, deep breath....

MrsBigD · 23/01/2005 20:08

very interesting... if all bottel fed kids were to follow a heavier curve then what did I do to my poor dd - besides obviously leaving here in her crib to cry for days without a feed as she never even made it into the bottom centile, which sort of got hinted at by HV (strangle her!) when she 'failed to progress'. I was actually threatened with social services had I not gone to the consultant! I was livid! as you can imagine.

and now... ds... well he's porky pie impersonate! and I'm doing exactly the same as I did with dd... just goes to show 'ya need 2 extremes to get a middle for statistics' and I've got them

So really there are 2 issues here... charts AND bl**dy HV's who think they're the authority.

IMHO... mum's the authority!

Gomez · 23/01/2005 20:08

No use to us as DD2 has never actually made it onto the charts - was off them at birth and that had remained the case - he, he!

Amanda3266 · 23/01/2005 20:11

Interested in this aloha. I'm a HV and all our charts have just been changed. I knew for years as a midwife that charts were biased in favour of bottle fed babies which is why I've never really paid much attention to them as a HV. Much more important to look at the baby, look at the family and make a rational and logical opinion - not one based upon these charts. Agree - far too many HVs treat them as gospel and it undermines parent's confidence.
Will be interested to read the link. The charts IMHO should have been changed years ago.

Mandy

Amanda3266 · 23/01/2005 20:13

Just read through the rest of the thread. My blood boils - just what is it with HVs sometimes which makes them undermine people.
Hope I will never, ever do this.

Mandy

alexsmum · 23/01/2005 20:13

my ds1 was breastfed for his first year and was off the charts! I remember them asking me what I was feeding him when I took him to be weighed, had I been giving him chocolate? He was about 3 months!!!ffs!! Then I got a new hv who just laughed and said I must produce gold-top!
He's 4 now and skinny as a rake but massively tall and well off the charts still! He was just doing a lot of growing very quickly in order for him to be the lovely tall boy he is now.

dinny · 23/01/2005 20:44

my dd was bottlefed and betweeb 91 and 98 centile and ds breastfed and betweeb 91 and 98 centile. what does that mean then? (apart from both are chubsters )

lockets · 23/01/2005 20:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Amanda3266 · 23/01/2005 21:20

I think too much attention is paid to these charts. If your baby is happy, healthy and seems well then there is nothing to worry about. There are babies coming into my clinic who jog along on the lower levels and those who go to the top and beyond (as my DS did). It matters not if they are happy and you are too. Apart from rare growth disorders most are just variations of normality - and we are all unique. In my experience when there is a real problem with growth or development the first person to spot it is Mum and Dad - not the HV stressing out because the baby is a few micro metres off the centile he/she was on last time. Listen to the parents that's what I think - if there's a problem they will be the first to say so.

Mandy

SoupDragon · 23/01/2005 21:22

That doesn't explain why both my bf DSs were over 91st percentile

SoupDragon · 23/01/2005 21:23

DS1 is now averagely skinny and DS2 is still a chunky monkey.

LunarSea · 24/01/2005 10:50

Amanda - you sound like a lovely HV! Having had so much hassle about ds being above average height, but below average weight from our HV, I'd love to have had you instead!

I always felt that I'd rather have him that way round, than the opposite. But our HV didn't seem to get that the 50% line meant that half would be above and half below, not that everyone should aim to be on it; or that not everyone would have the same height:weight proportions; or that a child who was active earlier (ds started rolling at 8 weeks and crawled/walked/ran, etc very early too) was always likely to be leaner than one who was staying put.

No matter how much I tried to explain that everyone with a naturally whippet shaped child (ds is still that shape, and still very active at 3) overfed their babies to ensure that their weight was as high on the chart as their height, all that would happen was that next time the charts were compiled the average weights would be higher, so the next generation of mums would have to overfeed even more.

And given the amount of publicity about overweight, underactive schoolchildren, didn't she think that an overemphasis on weight gain before that might have something to do with it? "Irrelevant" Apparently all I was doing was making "excuses, excuses"!

alexsmum · 24/01/2005 11:05

one of my friends reckons the problem is that most hv's just don't understand statistics well enough! They can't all be average! or it wouldn't be average!

Amanda3266 · 24/01/2005 12:30

Yep! Definitely don't get some HVs. They seem to think their role is that of "health police" and fret over seemingly trivial things while ignoring the more major.
A friend of mine who sadly lost a baby near her due date three years ago recently had another baby. Her HV's priority when she came to visit was that my friend needed to lose weight (she is quite big). I just couldn't believe it - my priority if I'd been her HV would have been on how she was feeling and coping with her new baby when it was bound to bring up feelings of grief for the baby she lost.{shock]
As for the statistics thing I strongly suspect that alexsmum is quite right - many HV's don't understand them.
And lunarsea - what a nightmare your HV sounds. Quite agree that your DS is the shape he's meant to be. It's that statistics thing again - I studied them and did a module in epidemiology as part of my degree - many HVs (especially the older ones who trained years ago) haven't done this. There needs to be some compulsory re-education of some.

Mandy

hercules · 30/01/2005 14:47

Hurrah! At last acknowledgement

I was told with ds and dd they were under the lines and should GP. Never mind they were full of enery etc etc. Didnt bother and dont get dd weighed.

Babblan · 30/01/2005 15:56

Where can you get the new chats? Anybody knows?

Annner · 04/02/2005 22:00

I asked my HV, and she got mine for me. I've posted on the other thread about what happened when I plotted dd's line so far.

Chrissey14 · 04/02/2005 22:13

if this is the case why cant there be separt charts for breast and bottle feed maybe

this is why the nursing and health profession keeps getting such a bad press all the time ,people high up fail to support healthcare workers interpret and follow research findings

it,s so frustrating like the one lady said her HV was unable to obtain charts for breast fed babies

weldone on the observer for pointing it out

Amanda3266 · 04/02/2005 22:45

Most of the new Child Health Records should now have the new charts. If your child was born before Sept 04 then your HV should be aware that there are differences. Not that this stoips some of them from worrying parents
Ask your HV to photocopy yhr chart from one of the new books for you - it shouldn't be a problem (I wouldn't mind if a Mumasked me). And - yes the charts should reflect that some babies bottlefeed and some babies are overdue at birth. They don't at present but any HV with a modicum of commonsense should be able to take these factors into account when looking at growth charts.

(Gets down off soap box)

Mandy

Clayhead · 04/02/2005 23:10

I was given so much grief for dd being 'under the line'. I never bothered to get ds weighed in case I got the same pressure again.

Amanda3266 · 04/02/2005 23:11

clayhead and [anger] at the stupid HVs (and I am one so am on safe ground) What is the matter with some of them?