If your older baby feeds a lot during the night...

[loopyloo82]

do they still want breakfast?

I ask because 11mo dd still feeds a lot during the night but then eats very very little or nothing at all for breakfast (blw). In fact, she still has milk a lot more than solid food and some days hardly eats at all.

I think this is fine - is it? At the moment I'm just going with the flow- should I start trying to distract her when she wants milk to encourage her to eat more food? Or just let her have as much milk as she wants (a lot!) At the moment I'm just following her cues and that feels right and she seems healthy but we're starting to get comments suggesting she needs to eat more food, which is worrying dh (he is a worrier, bless him!)

DD 11months is the same I cut her down two two meals a day and she actually eats more and feeds less. I read that between 6and 12months 80% of nutrients should come from milk and that solids should only compliment it.

Loopy: my DD is 18 months and is still pretty unbothered by solid food. She will eat it if she's hungry, but generally eats one decent meal a day and picks at the other two. She does usually eat a bowl of porridge at breakfast, but that will generally be because she didn't eat much at dinner the evening before.

As long as your DD is growing at a reasonable rate (and you don't have to get her weighed for that - you can tell by the rate she outgrows clothes), try not to worry. I did what you're doing (night feeds, BLW) and my DD followed the 50 centile line beautifully. It's not all about the lines etc but I hope that reassures you that your DD's development won't suffer for BLW.

The people who say she needs to eat more food are, er, well, they're not right. She's getting the best possible nutrition for her needs. Annoying rhyme: 'food is for fun until they are one' - makes me want to smash a window every time I hear it, but it was helpful to remind myself of the fact.

If she's still doing it in a year, you could do your distraction thing. But I suspect she won't be

My 9mo is doing exactly this at the moment - can't get enough into her at lunch and teatimes but breakfast - no interest whatsoever as she feeds so bloody much at night.

My understanding is that most of their nutrients should still be coming from milk until at least 1 so from a nutrition/developmental pov I don't have an issue with it. I would, however, saw off one of my legs in return for more than 2 hours sleep at a stretch

The World Health Organisation guidelines on infant feeding say that between 6 and 12 months 50% of a baby's nutition should come from breastmilk, and between 12 and 24 months a third of their nutrition should come from bm.

Thank you all for your replies and for sharing your experiences. I think I knew it was OK, just wanted some reassurance as all my other mum friends are not breastfeeding and their babies have lots more solids.

Thank goodness for Mumsnet!

Very similar to you but I have just discovered that one of the night feeds really only needed to be a cuddle. She is now eating a slightly bigger breakfast. Not saying your dd needs more solids but perhaps you don't need to do as many feeds.

She would still much rather have milk than solids though. Quite a relief to read that quote AngelDog. I've heard something similar before but this is definitely not what the HV's are preaching!

Thanks for that AngelDog, very helpful!

DD is 21 months, BLWed and still doesn't eat mases (but is a complete boob-fiend). I think she just has her dad's appetite so may end up being skinny like him despite the fact she's a chubster right now My mum HATES BLW with a passion and constantly comments on how little DD eats but as long as she's still healthy, chubby and energetic, I'm not worrying about it

Also I did read somewhere that the food until one thing could be interpted as being up to 23 months so no need to worry yet maybe

DS was the same and at around 13 months would feed all night, but then suddenly sit up at 2am and sign "food" at me, so it seemed to stop filling him up.

He's not a huge eater even now (21 months) but milk just doesn't fill him up now like it did when he was a baby.

I have a ds, nearly one, who is the same. He normally has one big meal at lunch or dinner and isn't bothered about the rest also. He's huge and seems healthy so I think it must be ok.

Dita - re your Mum remarking on how little your DD eats - I think it was Christopher Green who pointed out that we would marvel if our cars suddenly required 50% less fuel, but performed the same way.

I was very food obsessed with DS and he was, frankly, overweight. He's still unnecessarily chubby now and seems to be unable to regulate his own intake sometimes (will literally gorge until he is sick). It has been far more enjoyable and beneficial for us all to let DD set the pace. I did my boy a great disservice by fattening him up like a bloody Christmas turkey.

Thanks Druzhok - it's always nice to have some support, even if it's not from my mum. I read somewhere that toddlers only actually need nine mouthfuls of food per meal - not sure she always manages that but I do manage not to worry about her eating (her sleeping, on the other hand ... ).

My cousin was one of those ridiculously fat toddlers whose cheeks threatened to envelop her own face and her first word was "MORE!" - but now she's one of those irritating people who can eat what she wants and remain an effortless size 8

9 mouthfuls?! That is a realistic target for dd.

I keep seeing toddlers out and about eating a phenomonal amount, massive jars of puree and multiple petit filous!

Wish I could remember where I read it!

The only real comparison I have is my mum's other granddaughter, who was puree fed and eats a colossal amount - my mum is obviously convinced that it's the different way they were weaned which has made the difference, and not the fact that my brother is fond of his food while my DH is considerably lighter than me!

Dita: it's so difficult, isn't it? I really fell for the puree lark the first time around and seemed to think it my duty as a mother to feed my son until he was fit to burst. However, he was a really hungry baby, but then it seems that puree eaters eat more than BLW babies. Who's to tell what is cause and what is effect?

The execption (within my experience)n is my niece. She was puree fed from 5 months, but she fought it every inch of the way. She hated being spoonfed; she wanted a milk diet and to select the solid food she ate (if any), with her hands.

It made my SIL incredibly frustrated and anxious, because all the advice she had received (or was listening to) was targeted towards getting her DD onto 3 jars/tubs a day and cutting down the milk feeds. In a way, my DD benefitted from that, because it convinced me of the merits of BLW (at least that it was worth trying).

My niece ate bugger all until she was 12 months old anyway, despite all the efforts made. So she may as well have been BLW'd and been saved the struggle and upsets.

If your DD is not naturally inclined to eat masses, why should she?!