Feeding on demand = 'higher IQ'

[coffeeaddict]

Another weekend, another piece of research to send me into a tizzy. I have always veered towards feed on demand, while gently trying to get the baby into a routine by a few months old.

But I am now on number 5. I can't let her sleep in till whenever she wants. She has to be up with the family and fed at 7, to get the show on the road.

Also: when she was little she was very sleepy and we had to wake her up for feeds. We used to set alarms in the night. So we had to impose some sort of routine for her. She didn't demand enough, that was her problem!

Of course now having seen the research at the weekend I am freaking out and thinking 'I've done the wrong thing' while DH tells me it's all a load of bollocks. NOt even sure what the researchers mean by 'a routine'.

It's all very well. You can do what you like with your first baby. Once you have a few, it's impossible to be so 'go with the flow'. So if this is right, are last-borns inevitable going to have a lower IQ???

PS apologies if there is already a thread on this, couldn't find it.

Totally agree Fanjolina-genes,educated parents,educational activities,upbringing,limits on screentime,childhood diet,childhood experiences,schooling,language use, surely all these and more will have far more of an impact on IQ with genes being the biggest factor.

The fact is routines have been widely used for donkeys years. Are people inferring kids born in the 60s,70s have lower IQs?Actually my dad was born in the 40s and had uber strict,routine driven parents. He's the most brightest person I know(never got less than 100% in an exam,very gifted).

Routines aren't new and given the amount of time kids spend zoning out in front of screens,eating total shite,not speaking and listening properly,reading or getting enough outdoor time methinks one should worry a bit more on these areas.

6 months of feeding on demand and you're a guaranteed genius pmsl.

Also re GF the whole point of it is to have happy babies.Pre Gina I had 3 screaming babies,within 1 week of switching I had 3 happy babies who rarely cried for anything.

I have to say this ... and I know you (general 'you', not any particular poster) know this
anecdotes about you, your kids, your parents, the people next door etc. are NOT the same as epidemiological data
Some of us spend our lives carrying out this kind of population-based research after a decade's training and for pretty much f*ck all remuneration, and it really riles us when the immediate reponse is "it's bollocks" because, actually, we got into this stuff so that people could be more informed about the things that influence their health and make the right choices FOR THEM. The data can be messy, and no scientist worth their salt is ever going to claim that it's black and white because human development involves multiple different pathways and multiple different destinations. It doesn't mean we should stop looking for patterns though - for example, this kind of approach is where the recommendation to put babies to sleep on their backs, not their fronts, eventually came from.
That said:
I agree ... the self report methodology is seriously limiting, and the failure to define a routine puzzles me greatly. But it is a start .. something to pursue in other studies and see, over a number of years and a number of situations, whether it's a reliable relationship. If it is, then it has implications for how parents are advised to feed: advice which we can, of course, ignore and many people do.
Re: IQ changes, recent trends suggest IQs have been going up for a while but may be plateauing now. If I remember rightly it's called the Flynn effect ...

Hear hear FNP.
And yes, the children of the 40s do definitely have lower IQs than the children of the 60s/70s, who in turn have noticeably lower IQs than the children of the 90s - nobody is entirely sure of all the reasons why.

Anecdotal evidence and reliability aside surely anybody can see the huge amount of other factors which must effect IQ in a far greater way make the study rather pointless.

Also surely having more highly stressed mothers(which is what would happen if those averse to feeding on demand changed mothering methods which suited them because of yet another piece of "research")would have an adverse effect on IQ.

So all in all another pointless exercise in which to beat mothers around the head with.

Why can't mothers be trusted to mother their own way,the way that makes them happy and which suits their babies and their families?

If we followed every piece of dubious research you'd have a complete mishmash of parenting methods.

Why can't mothers just mother like they used to in the good old days?When did we become not capable of mothering to such an extent the we have to follow the call of every researcher after a fast buck and a headline?

Do link Dilys.

Flynn effect you mean? I'm on my phone so it's tricky to link, but actually the Wikipedia article gives a perfectly good overview - it's fascinating stuff, because it's absolutely undeniable, and backed up by multiple big studies world-wide, but it's not quite clear what it means - possibly nutrition related? Maybe all the fats that are giving us cancer and coronary heart disease are helping our brain? Maybe environmental? Banning of lead paint and fuel and coal smoke (but would that be worldwide?) Information-rich environment? Greater familiarity with testing style? Cascading literacy down the generations?

Good points Dilys. I like to think that considering the reasons for the Flynn effect e.g. better nutrition, longer compulsory education ... etc. should also lead us to question why we afford IQ such particular importance. In the end, all an IQ test undeniably measures is the ability to obtain a score on an IQ test! Yes, there are some 'culture fair' ones that try to control for the many things that influence test performance, notably cultural background, but since no-one's ever successfully defined intelligence anyway I think the tests are definitely fair game to be questioned. This is particularly true when we think about the fact that scores are increasing - are we REALLY getting more intelligent? In my opinion, no

it is blindingly obvious that a child whose needs are responded to as an infant makes for a more secure infant which in turn leads to a secure child which leads to better learning. A child who has a secure attachment to their parent will have a better respect for teachers and authority and greater confidence in building realtionships and maintaining them which will lead to a more successful and happy life.
unless you didn't feed on demand- then all I just said is bollocks

James Flynn himself started from the position that his initial findings simply meant that IQ tests were meaningless - as he continued his research he changed his mind and believed that the effects showed something more significant, but it's still open as a way to interpret the findings.

Hate this sort of research that just serves to make mothers feel more guilty.

My understanding of a routine is so that babies didn't need to 'demand' anything their needs were met as a matter of course, just like mine our by having regular meals, periods of activity, time to chill out etc.

How they can link how a baby is fed to how clever it may or may not be is beyond me the other variables must be massive ie the parents intelligence, how much time they spend talking/interacting with their baby, schooling, diet, socioeconomic factors and about a million other things!!!

FWIW my dd was a miserable baby who cried all day until I adopted a Gina Ford approach I can honestly say my baby was transformed as was I!!! I do not believe waiting til my dd 'demanded' a feed rather than having a routine whereby her needs where met will have any bearing on her intelligence!!!

"Why can't mothers just mother like they used to in the good old days?"

Well - there is a bit of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs about it isn't there? Because scheduled feeding is really something that in evolutionary terms is just a tiny blip as far as maternal behaviour is concerned.

And all the things mentioned in this thread do make for bright children: stimulating environments, responsive parenting, good genes etc.

But why is everyone so resistant to the idea that biologically optimal feeding habits for newborns might also have some beneficial effect on cognitive development? (which is all this research is saying - not that it's more important than a stimulating environment or genes in determining intelligence)

"Why can't mothers be trusted to mother their own way,the way that makes them happy and which suits their babies and their families?"

Er, last time I checked, they are. Just with advice, based on scientific evidence, to help guide their decisions. You're actually trusted and granted an enormous amount of freedom in parenting choices. I for one, however, do look at research when I am making my choices. You don't have to if you don't want to, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

demand fed babies are less likely to be obese too

But routine led babies are having their needs met and will have secure attachment,that is exactly why many switch to a routine.

Not sure about the child with a secure attachment to parents having greater respect for teachers etc. The vast maj or kids have secure attachment and believe you me from a teaching perspective I'd say this has buggar all to do with respect.

In fact in my experience those with too secure attachment to parents are often the horrors with little respect having been brought up to believe they can't do any wrong and the world revolves around them.

MrsHeffley, please could you point me towards the evidence that routine-led babies "will have secure attachment"? Because that sounds rather like you're drawing on, um, research to support your point. It's also a far more deterministic statement than any of those that I have made thus far ... which is surprising considering your opinion that most epidemiological research is confounded by multiple variables. You can't have it one way when you disagree with the conclusions but another when you wish to support your own experiences and decisions. Or have I misunderstood?

Why on earth would routine led babies not have secure attachment?

How a baby is fed has nothing to do with whether or not it has a secure attachment or not.

You can't say demand fed babies will have a more secure attachment than routine babies or vice versa. Attachment is a personal unique relationship between a baby and their primary care giver.

That is a question about the mechanisms of a relationship, not the presence of a relationship itself.

You must have a reason for thinking this relationship exists. What is that reason?

Pardon,you're questioning wether I even have a relationship with my dc err why????

I feed to a schedule. I certainly don't make my DD wait for a bottle, but if there is half an hour to go til the time she usually feeds, and she is happy to be distracted for even 20mins, great.

I will not be worrying about her IQ level in the future.

I have a happy baby. That is my concern.

Girlie, do you therefore consider that no interpersonal variables influence attachment? The feeding relationship is the first example of reciprocity and cue-response learning in the infant's early experience.

To be clear, I DIDN'T say that babies fed by routine have a higher prevalence of insecure attachment - my understanding is that there isn't any evidence either way. I was just surprised that Mrs Heffley seemed so sure that routine led feeding led to secure attachment. Statistically, some of the time it won't (just as, some of the time, cue feeding won't either).

MrsHeffley, I was refering to the relationship between the variables.

The variables are:

routine-led feeding AND attachment

You implied a causal relationship. I was asking why.

< bangs head against wall >

Exactly Madame,the whole point of feeding on schedule is it keeps them happy ie they never get screaming hungry unlike I must add when I demand fed for the first few weeks which was screaming hell with all 3.

If they wait for 10/20 minutes they're happy cooing,being sung/talked to(distracted) etc.