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.

I don't believe the research. So many factors contribute to IQ. FWIW, most of the high achievers (IQ wise and grades-wise) in my school (we've chatted about babies and routines!) were not fed on demand - many were looked after part of the time or most of the time by carers/au pairs/nannies who also did the housework and they definitely did things to a routine or they would have lost their jobs if they didn't finish the laundry or dusting that day because of "feeding on demand"! Do what you feel - instinctively - is the best, OP....you've had four babies already and this is your fifth; I think you're quite an expert now on what works for your kids! Research studies also have to follow quite strict study protocols and can't factor in things like personal attention, whether you smile at your baby more, etc, which do have an effect too.

I'd rather have common sense than data any day.

I'm not saying that the research is the be-all and end-all, but I don't think any of the objections raised so far are especially good.

1. The researchers used a methodology which controls for all the other known factors that might influence IQ - a long list of factors, and not just the obvious.

1. The researchers didn't claim that demand feeding causes high IQ - they say the two things are associated, which is totally different. It could be that mums who demand-feed have some unknown special quality which on average causes them to raise smarter kids.

1. I'm sorry but this whole "I know a routine-fed kid who is very smart" business is just dumb. The research predicts that on average, a kid who was the same in every other way but demand-fed would end up slightly smarter. We are talking about averages not individuals FGS!

Quite right MrsH. It's only common sense to see that throwing the alarm clock and GF away and feeding on demand will make you more relaced and confident, and I certainly found it so.

The study's claim that the thousand demand feeding mothers were more stressed and tearful is clearly bollocks, and there are far more fundamental factors affecting women's mood than how they happen to feed their babies.

"it's possible to get to 3 hour or more stretches between feeds is that each feed is structured so you make sure your baby gets a really decent amount of milk and is actually satisfied by the end of it."

For SOME women and for SOME babies it works, but for other women and other babies DOESN'T, and it sometimes it FUCKS UP breastfeeding.

Honestly - you must see that there's a reason why people who are actually TRAINED in breastfeeding and who hand out advice based on actual EVIDENCE, don't support routinely advising women to do this.

Where does Gina Ford get off on advising on something she has no proper training in?

We're trying to reassure OP about whether she should turn her life upside down on the basis of one piece of research (answer is no), we're not debating whether the study was good or not.

Oh - and I think it's quite understandible that the study found women who feed on demand are more stressed. Probably because they're parenting in a way which is generally perceived to be 'inefficient', and they probably feel really bloody unsupported and undermined half the time.

"I'd rather have common sense than data any day"

I wouldn't. I think both are good. And actually many practices, like putting babies to sleep on their fronts (it's just common sense isn't it? They sleep so much more soundly on their fronts!) and smoking in pregnancy (the most important thing is that you don't feel stressed. It's common sense that stressed mothers are bad for babies) are based on 'common sense'.

Re- Gina Ford, some of her tips were good, the ones that drove me and my friends crazy (which we ignored) were 1) her insistence that something must be done at 12.45pm and not 12.50 or 12.35pm, and 2) that hideous list of foods that could potentially give your baby excessive wind or other problems. If you followed the list, the mother would end up with nothing to consume but potatoes.

Because she's very experienced at her job, and found that actually it was fine and worked?

I don't know anyone who tried a routine for more than 2-3 days for whom it didn't work.

I do know that in the UK people are given such brow-beating, guilt-tripping advice about doing ANYTHING which might help them get a bit of sleep, which might for a MOMENT not be about doing things the lentil-weaving way, that rates of breastfeeding are spectacularly crap. By the time my twins were born I had read so much rubbish about all the FEARS I should have, and how everyone would be out to get me and ruin my chances of breastfeeding, that I was highly suspicious of everything any HCP told me which wasn't to just breastfeed all the time, whenever the baby wanted, and woe betide if you DARED to try introducing a bottle at any point.

Luckily for me I was in Switzerland by the time I gave birth, where there is no guilt-tripping. There is plenty of advice and help by people who don't instil the fear of god into you that if you let your baby so much as sniff a bottle they'll reject the breast. Who don't tell you that the only way is to feed your baby on demand because otherwise It Will All Go Wrong. Amongst my friends who were all given healthy, normal, DOABLE advice - which included introducing bottles early, using a breast pump, not being afraid of nipple shields (frankly, very similar advice to that in the book I had 'What to Expect...' which seems universally reviled on MN) - everybody bf successfully for at least the first few months.

shag great examples of common sense not only being wrong but killing babies...

I would like to add the historic common sense that was 'Teething is dangerous (obviously because babies sometimes die while teething) so we should punch holes in their gums to let the teeth out more easily'.

No doubt the 1930's were full of people saying the research saying lancing gums was more dangerous then letting babies get on with it was bogus, after all, they had their's done as kids and they survived....and it is just common sense that stuck teeth can kill...NOT.

Yes, I thought Ford's advice about giving a bottle of expressed milk once a day was good advice. Doing that was the only way we all managed to BF to 7-12 months without burning down our homes due to lack of sleep!

Aah, I didn't realise I was dealing with the kind of people who think that to sleep a baby on its tummy is akin to smoking whilst pregnant.

FFS. I prefer to think for myself. I read about the risks and make my own judgement. In the case of sleeping on their front, I asked my paediatrician, who had slept 4 of his 5 children on their front because that's where they were most comfortable. He advised me to ensure I reduced other risks as much as possible if my baby seemed much happier this way and I decided it was a risk I was prepared to take. And having done the reading, I found very little evidence that there was any risk whatsoever.

Well if we are onto GF anecdotes....I know three people who tried it for more than 3 days...2/3 were total fails. The babies just failed to adapt to the schedule and wailed non-stop for a week. 1/3 was an instant success (cue much jealousy) for about 2 months after which the baby decided the routine wasn't for him either and wailed non-stop for a week until the parents gave up.

We didn't bother personally as it was clear from a few days old that our baby had a plan and not falling in with her plan was going to cause distress all round.

Many babies have schedules but they don't correlate with GF's.....

london glad you got away with it...most babies aren't susceptible to SIDS after all. But can I suggest you not tell other people that there isn't any evidence or that it is a bad idea to sleep babies on their backs? They may not be so lucky and may indeed have a susceptible baby in which case your advice could be very dangerous indeed.

Shag pumping your body full of toxins isn't common sense,ditto putting baby on the front to sleep.

"Common sense" = what I believe, and will continue to believe even in the face of contradictory evidence, because it backs up what I did and I don't want to feel bad.

Sorry I Xed with London.I didn't do the front thing due to being obsessive re breathing and was fearful of obstruction ie I used my own common sense.

You can't compare to front sleeping to smoking. Most mothers don't smoke whilst pg due to common sense. Smoking whilst pg is not the norm.

vair vair true TBM

MrsH, I think shag was employing what we call 'irony'

I'm generally in favour of data and evidence-based decision making (and don't think you can always rely on 'common sense'), but you do have to consider the quality of the data, which in this case is not particularly good.

Even the researchers/authors of the study do not claim that the data they have shows any causative relationship, or advise any change in policy or parenting advice on the basis of this study. It's 'parenting experts' such as those quoted in the Guardian article who are cherry-picking the data that supports their own philosophies.

No common sense is what mothers used to be able to rely on ie they instinctively knew what was right for them and their baby.

Sadly we no longer seem to be qualified to use our own common sense instead we should read every bit of research and flit backwards and forwards without relying on our own mothering instinct.

The whole babies should sleep on their tummies thing which my parents generation had rammed down their throats was entirely due to 'common sense'. Babies vomit a lot and you wouldn't leave an unconscious adult likely to vom lying on their back for fear of choking. But it turns out that babies don't choke if they vom lying on their backs...but they do get comfy on their fronts...so comfy that some of them tragically fail to wake....so common sense turns out to be wrong when applied to babies sleeping on their tummies....and a great great deal of other things too....

personally I will take actual evidence over common sense every single time...

Ephiny that's interesting.

I think there is far too much cherry picking to be frank and it's highly damaging.I'm surprised any mother has any confidence to make any decision themselves these days-it's very sad.

Also what I find ironic is the not following common sense and giving way to every bit of dodgy "research" at all times only goes one way.

Given the links re bf and eczema and the iron issue re weaning and bf, if one blindly followed "research" then clearly one wouldn't bf.

However if one uses one's common sense one would still bf.