Do we set new mums up for bf failure?

[GreenMonkies]

Bear with me, I fear this may be as much a rant than a genuine question.

I see so many threads about tiny babies wanting to feed all the time, wanting to be held all the time, being "high needs" and velcro-babies or cling-ons. Yet this is perfectly natural baby behaviour!!

Why don't ante-natal classes actually tell mums what to really expect? Why do so many say in total shock "when I put little Johnny down he cries!!" and "s/he falls asleep in my arms but wakes when I put him/her down". Why do so many think they should be able to feed their tiny baby every three or four hours and then put them down and "get on with things" in between?

When are we going to give women the information they really need?

I was talking to a colleague this week ad she was telling me about her first 6-12 weeks of motherhood. A classic tale of constant feeding, crying when put in the moses basket/cot, being a "hungry baby" who wasn't "satisfied" by her milk alone and so on. We chatted and compared experiences and at one point I said to her "if your midwife/healthvisitor had said to you 'your baby will want to be held 24 hours a day and feed every hour or so for the first 6-12 weeks, it's totally normal' would you have worried so much about the way he was behaving?" And she said no, of course not.

And she then said "isn't it a shame that the first couple of months with our new babies were spoiled by so much stress when if we'd known what to really expect it could have been so much nicer"

It just seems to me that by giving new mums false expectations and not telling them the truth about normal, natural baby behaviour that we set them up for breastfeeding failure. Or am I just banging my head against a brick wall here?

Greenmonkies: Of course you (or anyone else on this thread) never say 'mums should feel guilty'. Of course you don't. What I'm arguing is that comments as we need to look after babies THE WAY NATURE INTENDED' create implicitly (and actually...to me it sounds pretty explicit) loads of guilt & present one type of parenting (basically, AP parenting) as better than other types. I'm not saying you actually say this. I'm arguing (and you may of course not agree) that it's not that helpful to set up one way of parenting as 'the way nature intended'.

Versus what? Unnatural ways of parenting? As far as I'm concerned, there are as many types of parenting as there are parents. Babies turn out to be secure, happy, fulfilled, loved etc depending on a variety of reasons. As we shouldn't blindly follow any 'routine' book (as if it can solve all our problems in one go) in the same way we shouldn't assume that AP babies or those who are breastfed are necessary happier, more secure etc.

But I'm with you 100% on changing things from the ground up. What 'thinkabout' described (which is what happened to her)- different friends bringing food around etc- is exactly the kind of thing I have in mind. New mums don't need scaremongering (which is how they might experience a very detailed, harsh, completely honest description of bf problems); they don't need more info (they can get info when they're ready, as long as it's available). They need nurturing. They need help around the home. They need good friends. They need acceptance regardless of their parenting / feeding choices. They need understanding. They need good nutritious food made for them. They need someone to come & hold the baby for a bit so that they can take a shower. They need good childcare & flexible working possibilities etc. I could go on. I think you get my point!

I guess we can surely agree on all this. My only problem that I've tried to explain has to do with all these descriptions of what is 'natural' and what is not. A happy, calm, nurturing mother who is bottlefeeding is, to me, completely natural in that she is part of the world as it is today. As is a breastfeeding mother. As are all sorts of other various ways of being a mother. Lets not elevate something as more 'natural' than other things. You may not agree of course... that's fine, as I love debate

HerMommieness

"How in the name of * am I supposed to express after feeds if she is feeding hourly?? Have chucked it and now putting her on as often as possible"

I am far from expert, for what it is worth, I found it best to express every three/four hours during the day, while the baby fed from the other breast. Then I used that to top up. If you are leaking milk you can use breast shells.

A good idea is to invest in some box sets or a subscription to lovefilm or similar, and just assume that from 6pm in the evening onwards your baby will just feed and sleep in your arms. Try and get out every day too. This will pass.

I am "guilty" of having suggested that there is some kind of innate stronger bond between mother and baby rather than father and baby. Of course this is not due to any kind of genetic factor I don't think, but due to the amount of time that each parent spends with the new baby and unfortunately for most of Western Europe that is made easier (not easy, but easier) for mum.

What I was trying to say in terms of unmet expectations of early motherhood including all the trials and tribulations of BFing, this is an exclusively female problem although honest information to both people involved in the creation of a family would be helpful. Such as pointing out to dad that suggesting a bottle when mum frazzled and tearful due to constantly latched on baby, is not supportive, whereas making cup of tea, bringing chocolate and rubbing feet, is.

I personally feel with hindsight that being offered all sorts of possible solutions to make Ds1 less "high need", made me feel automatically I was doing something wrong (seeing that I was being advised to do something different from what I had been doing). Of course all this advice was given with the best possible intentions, however what I needed to hear was some version of "get on with it, woman, it does pass, it is normal for a baby to be a limpet/be unputdownable".

Equally, as stated in another thread I had been on, whatever you say to a first time expectant mother she will not really,truly believe what she is told, until she is actually doing it: "you will be tired, your life is no longer your own, you are not in control, etc" (I was once so sleep deprived I dropped DS2 in the middle of the night and did not notice until he started crying on the floor ).
As to the whole "natural" debate, well, the Black Death was perfectly natural, too , yet I am still not so keen...

HerMomminess What a fab post. You sound like you have just the right attitude to succeed. Guilt is internal, but usually caused by the external. It suits others to use terminology like mothers 'failure' to breastfeed 'failure' to progress in labour.

More accurate would be 'failure' of the systems to support bfing and 'failure' of the hcps to support a women to labour optimally.

I agree in the most part Maria2007, but I am jsut wondering about the styles of parenting comments - of course blindly following AP with every baby wouldn't necessarily be a good idea, but I do think that the general basic principles of AP - namely, not leaving a baby to cry or trying to "train" a baby to fit into someone else's routine - IS parenting "the way nature intended".
We try and change things sometimes and this is often due to the society we live in, certain expectations and lack of cultural support for new mothers - points that have already been highlighted. But correct me if I'm wrong, research has shown that babies being separated from caregivers or left to cry for prolonged periods of time can be affected negatively, in Sue Gerhardt's book "why love matters" she quotes sources for this.
I'm not saying that AP is the be all and end all, or that controlled crying will damage babies or anything like that before I'm jumped on, but I do think that it is a shame that there is so much emphasis on training babies and getting them to sleep through in our society, when we know that too much separation or distress at such a young age can be damaging. Of course many many factors affect things, and many babies thrive on routines but I don't agree that it doesn't matter and I think that the research supports this. Please someone correct me if I'm worng as I'm not a developmental psychologist!

BaconAndEggs: well but that's exactly what you are saying (that controlled crying damages children). Of course that's what you're saying. Sue Gerhardt very clearly says that. And a phrase such as 'trying to train a baby to fit into someone else's routine' (is not) 'parenting the way nature intended' leads to exactly those conclusions & really really guilt-trips mothers. After all, if parents embarks on sleep training (e.g. out of sheer exhaustion) but this is not what nature intended, then are they not by implication potentially damaging children?

As I said earlier, I think everything that human beings do is natural, just because it's done by human beings who are part of nature. Where did you find the idea that AP & responding to a baby immediately when crying is more 'natural'? Parenting methods change all the time. There is no 'more natural' way & I really seriously doubt that our ancestors (because AP & similar theories often talk about older, more traditional societies for some reason) followed AP instinctually. I would even argue that letting a baby cry at some point in order to learn to sleep better is completely natural. In fact, I think most people end up doing that. They do it because they're natural, i.e. because they need sleep & are not getting it & are not superhuman.

When you say 'prolonged' periods of crying, again, what exactly do you mean? Sleep training never involves prolonged periods of crying, it ends in a few nights maximum & it actually works very well if it's done correctly.

And yes. You say 'please some one correct me if I'm wrong'. Well I think you're very wrong although you're very well meaning. The theories you quote (e.g. Sue Gerhardt's or Steve Biddulph's or many others like those) are not in any way proven, and they're based on very ideologically-loaded research which can be critiqued on many levels. Also, they're based on extreme situations which have no application whatsoever on everyday family life where CC usually occurs.

Your argument is exactly my problem with the OP. I understand the good intentions & the logic behind AP (and bf against all odds) I just don't agree at all that it's best or more natural in most circumstances. In fact, I think AP- much more than other types of parenting- massively guilt-trips those who deviate from it & implicitly creates competition between mothers about who parents in a better way.

Maria2007: I am not saying that cc damages children - your comment "sleep training never involves long periods of crying" is wrong ime. In one of my books, a very mainstream one, it advocates leaving a baby to cry it out, and if it is distressing you too much switch the monitor off - just make sure you check on them in case they've hurt themselves! I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this can be healthy for a child. Poor parent, having to listen to your child cry, so turn the monitor off!

CC, when done correctly (GF doesn't advocate it for very young babies does she?) doesn't usually involve prolonged crying periods, again just ime. But many parents do resort to CIO. The research I've read (though you say it's ideologically loaded - can you expand?) does imply that this can be damaging, especially with a young baby.

So no, I am not saying that and I wasn't aware Sue Gerhardt very clearly said this either. I am not a die-hard AP-er at all, I believe very much in horses for courses when it comes to parenting, really. Sorry if this didn't come across in my post. I really strugle, though, when it comes down to strict routines which lead to upset and cio for young babies though. I can totally see how this could be damaging, and I have read research to support my feeling on this though I am not an expert in the field so am willing to be educated

With regards to your second paragraph, it made evolutionary sense for babies to be held all the time and responded to in many older societies due to dangers that we thankfully don't face today. This is what I mean I suppose by "natural", though maybe it's not the best turn of phrase. Can I just add that my own dd wasn't held all the time or slung. I just think it makes sense. I don't mean it as a stick to beat anyone with. Honestly.

Greenmonkies, I couldn't agree more.

If only I knew in the first weeks that how my daughter breastfed was normal. And that although she gained a respectable amount of eight (she was prem and small) it wasn't huge.

I persisted in EBF because I'm a stubborn mofo, but was an inch away from caving in.

It was all normal, textbook in fact.

I had no chance to go to classes and she arrived earlier than I had a chance to read up.

Agree that first time mums seem more bothered about the birth than what comes after. Check most pregnancy forums. Hardly a question about breastfeeding from a first timer (although some from second timers who failed to BF sorry for use of word 'fail', but you know what I mean the first time)

I flew my mother out to SE Asia when my daughter was born. Her wise words to me when I tearfully asked her if I was feeding her ok: "God, it was 37 years ago, I can't remember".

I would have loved to see a couple of mums b/feed up close, as well as talk to them, before I gave birth.

Maria, I think we need both more information and more support.
Someone telling me what it would be really like would have made a huge difference. Hearing that bf may hurt, they may feed hourly etc wouldn't have stopped me trying. I agree too much information could be counter productive, but there has to be a happy medium, and watching a plastic doll latch onto a knitted nippple in the antenatal class wasn't the right level for me.

I also agree more peer support would make a difference, as would reminding mums to accept support offered. (How many of us turned down offered help with dc1?) I suspect however that strategies such as improving bf advice and information are more changeable than getting people to help their friends.

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here. I remember thinking there was something wrong with my milk because (as MIl kept helpfully pointing out) ny DS wouldn't "settle." I was certainly expecting to feed every 2 hours or so at first but was surprised when DS demanded a more frequent schedule.

Having said that I remember saying to my mum that he cried whenever I put him down and she looked at me like I was a total moron and said "well don't put him down then." A sling was my lifesaver.

We did make the decision to teach him to self soothe at about 3 months but NOT by leaving him which I remain fundamentally opposed to. We stayed with him and patted and shushed him until he could fall asleep without being physically held. It was all getting a bit much by then and he couldn't stay sleeping on us forever. He actually took to it very well - it wasn't as difficult as we had expected. So much for the "rod for your own back" brigade.

When he woke up at night I fed him and he went back to sleep again. Interestingly my next door neighbour recently advised me to expect some noise as she was going "cold turkey" on night feeds - her DS is about 4 months. I wasn't impressed.

What an interesting thread and the OP is very similar to something I've been saying recently. I'm bf my twins who are now almost 17 weeks old and it was so so hard in the beginning. I was very fortunate with my support; my DH was at home and had agreed that for at least the first 6 weeks I would feed the babies and do almost nothing else. My parents visited often and my mum and my sister stayed for a whole week each during the first 6 weeks. I had MN! Also, the MW and HV were supportive, but I wonder whether that support would have been so good had I not been so vocal and determined to bf them, and had I had any problems. And still I fed all the time and really needed that deal with DH.

I've been shocked at how ingrained that 'getting back to normal' thing has been. Some e.g.s: MIL telling me we'd all be 'better off' if the babies were on a 4-hourly feeding schedule, my friend, pregnant with twins who already has a DC that she bf saying how suprised she was that I was still 'demand feeding at 6 weeks' (I think the propaganda about being in a routine is worse with twins because everyone tells you that if you are not, you will not cope. Nonsense as I've learned, but not much different from all the things you've already mentioned that raise our expectations about raising babies). Finally, I bumped into an acquaintance who had had her first DC just a week before. The twins were 12 weeks and I was starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. She complained that she didn't have enough milk, he took an hour to feed and then was hungry again an hour later. "That's quite normal" I said gently, "if you can hang on in there it gets better" she replied that she'd just been to see the midwife and had been told to see if she could make it to 2 weeks and then not feel too bad if she bottle fed him. I was so disappointed for her that she felt she was failing and had not been given any really basic advice about feeding more frequently to build supply etc.

I'm sure that I was told what it was like in my antenatal class and I know I did lots of reading, particularly about feeding twins. Much of it slipped my mind due to lack of sleep and the sheer mind numbingness of feeding most of the day and night, but the support kept me going and that's what's really lacking I think. I had only 3 visits from the HV team in total and that was with twins, I assume if I'd had one baby and all seemed fine I would have only had the one. Getting to clinic with two babies is impossible - I only go if I have help that day. And none of these professionals ever asked me any more about the bf than was everything OK and then moved on. One bf counsellor on the post natal ward is not the answer to this problem!

What a fab post! I had a big wakeup call with no.1. Constant feeding, bleeding nipples needing to be held 24/7 etc. Luckily I had a fab HV who would often go against policy. She actively encouraged me to hold my baby, believing she needed to feel secure with me before she could feel secure on her own. She supported co-sleeping (we were a low risk family) saying we r the only species on the planet who put our newborns into a box on their own and expect them to be happy with it. (Have recently read in How To Be A Happy Mum, that countries with high ratios of co-sleeping actually have low SIDS rates) DD is now a fab sleeper, no probs settling down and has so much confidence she will take on the world!

Agree more realistic advice should be given to future parents. With my second I was only non-first time mum @ antenatal classes and made a point of telling everyone what it was really like. Some midwives really supported this but some tried to shut me up!

I did ask my HV once why they didn't tell mums about how difficult breast feeding could be - she replied that if they did no one would try!

Good thread. Agree with the OP.

However regardless of where I stand on attachment parenting or breastfeeding, one phrase I utterly detest is the insidious "made me feel guilty".

No-one can MAKE me feel anything. Either I feel guilt because MY conscience tells me I have done something questionable, or I am at ease with my decisions. If I identify my feelings of guilt are misplaced, then they can be resolved and dismissed. Someone elses's choices and opinions are entirely irrelevant to my own personal feelings of guilt.

I do wish people would stop projecting the reasons for their own feelings onto third parties. Owning responsibility for one's own decisions is part of being a responsible adult.

Verylittlecarrot: well that's actually not true though. Do you think it's just by coincidence that mothers always talk about the guilt they feel when it comes (e.g.) to work-life balance...and fathers rarely, if ever, do? Is that not societal beliefs 'making them feel guilty'? We certainly don't only feel guilty when there's something we've done wrong, it often has to do with doing something that is outside the norm or what's considered best in our community.

Is it not also about giving pregnant woman some credit for being intelligent human beings who can make decisions for themselves, their babies and their families??

I had some professional knowledge (not much ) about BFing, I had done my own research, I Was Keen To Breasfeed my first born. I had read up on the techniques, I attended classes (NHS/NCT) antenatally, and still I found it very hard to cope with the changes motherhood bring anyway PLUS having a screaming/never settled/panicky velcro-baby. So, REASSURANCE that all was normal would have been welcome... Paradoxically I now feel more guilty about mixfeeding him form 6 weeks onwards than I did then, because I now know more and am more experienced and I realise it was not necessary to top him up (did not make any difference to the screaming either ). And I would have still chosen to BF if given more of the potential difficulties of BFing.

Still loving this thread .

VLC, I do agree with you - but only up to a point. I think Maria has a very valid point - society is not set up in such a way that women (for it generally is women, as Maria identifies) can make decisions based solely on best research. For instance, I work more than I would if I didn't live in a society that necessitated so much blinking cash for stuff. Do I feel guilty? Yes, I do. The research points to it being best for mothers to be primary caregivers for their children at least up to the age of three.

The interesting part comes when I consider what's making me feel guilty. Is it the fact the research exists and doesn't say what would salve my conscience? No, not really. Is it that other women frown on me for what I do? Again, not really.

Is it because I have the perception of choice yet I'm not actually at present able to make a choice other than "work full time"? Yes, I think so - I haven't made an active, conscious choice to work - circumstance dictates that I do.

Yes, I could uproot the whole family and move far away - but then neither I nor DH would have work and we'd still have bills to pay and we'd have no friends or family - so we take a pragmatic decision that it's best for the children to be with people who love them (and we are lucky enough to have family who care for them when we're at work - again, mitigating the guilt I feel, though not allaying it entirely).

It's the same sort of perceived "choice" with breastfeeding for many women - and that's where society really needs to start valuing mothers, start valuing children - and start valuing breastfeeding support. It's currently provided by charities - which is brilliant and they do an immense amount of good - but fgs, really, why on earth do we need charities to do what the Government-paid workers in the health service ought to be doing? It is an incredible situation, really.

I assume lots of you have read The Politics Of Breastfeeding (yes, I really am banging THAT drum again!), but if you haven't, really, I would urge you to.

GreenMonkies, excellent OP. And very thought-provoking thread.

But Maria and hunker - I agree with you about society's expectations and demands being unfair and needing to change. I agree that going against the societal 'norm' can result in others judging me, and that is an unpleasant, frustrating and unfair feeling. Society may judge me as 'guilty'. However, they cannot MAKE me feel guilt that I do not believe I deserve.

Wikipedia suggests "Guilt is a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes - whether justified or not - that he or she has violated a moral standard, and is responsible for that violation."

If I stand by my decisions, and feel they were the absolute best decisions given the pragmatic options available to me at that time and in those circumstances, I have nothing to berate myself for.

I can only feel guilt if I agree at some conscious or subconscious level that I have done something wrong, and that in my circumstances I had a reasonable opportunity to do otherwise but didn't take that opportunity.

Maria, you asked the question "Is that not societal beliefs 'making them feel guilty'? "

I don't think it is. I think it is one's personal beliefs causing the guilt. Granted, they may be aligning themselves with society's beliefs, but they are owned; they are personal.

An example - most of UK society believes that co-sleeping with your baby is unnecessary and places your child at risk of the severest consequences. I would go so far as to say that many people would actively desire that I feel guilty about placing my child in harm's way - such is their perception of the situation.

I, however, hold a different set of beliefs to the majority of UK society and feel absolutely NO guilt for my decision to co-sleep. I am utterly at ease with my decision.

I am far from feeling immune to guilt; I feel it about everything from insensitive comments I have inadvertently made which have hurt others, to the crappy dinner I made for my child tonight, to much more serious issues. But in all of those cases I really could have done differently yet chose not to.

Verylittlecarrot: well I suppose what I'm saying is very simply that society's beliefs, cultural beliefs, can never ever be separated that easily from personal beliefs. So it's impossible, as I see it, to say 'this is guilt because of personal feelings / this is guilt because society has made me feel guilty'.

As for making the 'absolutely best decisions'....well, that's definitely the ideal, to make a decision that we feel most comfortable with & are sure about. But we mothers (and everyone) are pretty ambivalent creatures aren't we. We often stop bf without believing it's the 'absolutely best decision'. Or we do CC out of necessity, without believing 100% it's what's best. Or, even, we practice AP & are exhausted & irritable(sometimes) & start thinking 'well maybe I should change something'.

Anyway, I don't want to go on & on. Just meant to say, very simply, that labels such as 'natural', 'best' etc work very directly against women.

Interesting, because as usual on MN a thread about how to solve bf failure, led in the main by people who successfully bf.

Contrary to popular belief that most people give up because of a sore nipple and having to feed too often, I stopped bf because my daughter lost too much weight. I actually liked bfing and found stopping quite traumatic.

Interestingly I went to a wedding yesterday and met two other people with babies under 6 months whose babies also didn't gain weight so they ended up switching to formula in similar circumstances. When bfing we were all made to feel like we were starving/neglecting our babies but were then congratulated on weight gain on formula.

I just don't believe that most people give up because it is difficult and personally think that people who manage to bf successfully are really lucky. I'm sure it is hard work/painful, but giving a two week old baby formula is also very painful, just in a different way.

To increase bf rates real notice needs to be taken of the real rather than imagined reasons why people really switch to formula. Out of the three of us with better support maybe it could actually have worked in the longer term for 1?

Brettgirl, what you say certainly rings a bell. In the country where I grew up, where bf support is much much worse than in the UK, almost every woman quits bf for the reason you did: because her doctor (usually a doctor & not a HV) says the baby is not putting on enough weight. It's interesting also that almost every woman (more so in my mother's & grandmother's generation, but even today) who quit bf for this reason believed they didn't have enough milk.

I do believe that some babies truly don't put on enough weight (like yours) and also some women truly don't have enough milk. But it's been proven that these cases are far far fewer than people normally believe, and that many women who are advised to switch to formula could avoid quitting bf if there was enough support to help them increase their milk supply.

It's very sad, really...

Brettgirl, I of all people understand what it is to have a baby who doesn't gain enough weight to satisfy the health professionals. I think that my baby gained less in her first six months than any other MN baby I've read about. I specialised in worrying about WHY my baby wasn't gaining the way she 'should'. I'm not sure that there was any further breastfeeding advice anyone could have offered that would have helped change the situation for the better.

Most people in my circumstances DO switch to formula - and I absolutely understand why, and utterly sympathise with that desperately sad decision.

I chose to continue to bf despite the crappy weight gain and worried advice from HCPs. I no more judge the mother who regretfully switched to formula than I would expect her to judge me for wilfully continuing to 'starve' my baby!

My decision was entirely down to getting the right support; in my case, from the knowledgeable contributors to MN. So actually, support can help people like me, if not by solving the 'problem' than by enabling one to better assess the severity and risk of the situation more knowledgably, and take action accordingly.

Just because I breastfed exclusively for 6 months doesn't mean I fed 'successfully', at least not in the sense that most people understand success!

I agree with the need for more info so that women can be better prepared. I had problems with my milk supply. My baby was born 10 weeks early and I subsequently found out that it is not unusual for women in my situation to have problems with supply. However, no one at the Neonatal Unit (or on the antenatal/postnatal ward) told me this. So I was at my wits end expressing 8 times a day (inc. at night)and only getting 20 ml a time. I followed all the usual advice (skin to skin, drinking plenty of water, tried herbal remedies etc.) Eventually (and only after doing my own research) I started taking Domperidone. It worked immediately and I am so glad that I can now feed my baby with my own milk (for 3 weeks dd had mixed feeds of my milk and bank milk).

Great thread!

I think what's a bit tricky in these circumstances is to know what the fine line is between a baby who is actually absolutely healthy & thriving- just not putting on that much weight- and a baby who is actually hungry & really needs more milk. Perhaps the mother herself is the best expert in this. It's very important to know where to get advice (e.g. MN) about the prejudices around weight gain (we all have learnt that most weight charts are mostly based on formula fed babies). And at the same time it's equally important to know the signs for dehydration & the signs of a baby who is really not thriving (and not just according to the weight chart numbers). Difficult balance to keep in mind. No wonder we mums obsess about these things.

My personal line is that I could not ignore HCPs over and above people who have not seen my baby posting on the internet. I would not change that perspective either if I have another baby but hopefully would be more relaxed having read more about it, but onbviously wouldn't judge others who feel differently. In my case I was told in hospital that bf was going fine, then 12 hours later at 3 day weigh in they were threatening to readmit. It definitely in my case wasn't baby 'readjusting' as my daughter was 6lb15 (25th centile) at birth and I'm 5'10!!!! Once on formula (after 2 weeks) she went straight back to 25th centile line and had stayed there ever since.

It's impossible really to say whether bf could have worked/what the cause of the problem was. She definitely seemed to be emptying me when I was full so I think latch was OK. She was quite small when she was born and has got longer and longer since, so has never really accelerated with weight gain and has stayed quite skinny really. She's certainly (at 4 1/2 months) skinnier than all the bf babies I know!!! She isn't a particularly hungry baby anyway so perhaps she was giving up too soon? Perhaps I didn't have enough milk? Who knows?

In terms of readjustment though a friend who has a baby the same age they were trying to stress out because she had dropped from 98th to about 55th centile. Utterly ridiculous.