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.

Well I agree with the idea there is just too much information altogether....

As you point out there are reasons to BF and reasons not to...reasons to wean and not to...cost/benefit ratios for everything...

having all this info available just makes you feel responsible for EVERYTHING.

To return to the OP, I don't think a single person in this thread believes that this evidence is good enough to change your plans either way, unless perhaps you are highly vulnerable to PND and safeguarding your mental well-being is a matter of life and death, in which case it might tip you towards a schedule.

The IQ stuff is interesting, plausible, apparently as well controlled as they can manage within the sample size available and well worth following up with later studies (especially bf vs ff vs IQ ones). OTOH it's hugely vulnerable to measurement errors, definition problems, confounding factors and sub-sample size. Also the suggested effect, though noticeable, is relatively small.

The only people who are saying "Drop all previous plans because you must demand feed" are the ones who were already saying that because they already believed that scheduled feeding causes brain damage - if you didn't follow them before, this study really isn't enough reason to change your mind.

It wasn't iron and eczema linked.

There was the bfing and weaning study with the screaming headlines re lack of iron at 6 months. There was a separate study that linked bf to childhood eczema.

dilys excellent analysis there!

I'm sure I have also seen FF= eczema so that's a right off...

the iron thing is odd....I asked my HV about it (just for a laugh) and she said a whole heap of incompetent bollocks the gist of which appeared to be that there might be a problem if your baby was low birth weight/ prem and you exclusively BFed to six months (like anyone can wait that long for first food broccoli gurning) but that the iron in FF is evil and cannot be used by humans so we were all going to die....was that about right?

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

But she's a fucking nanny who - at most - can only have worked with a few dozen families in her career. And on the basis of this has handed out advice on breastfeeding to millions, which has probably resulted in serious medical problems for some mothers who took it. I think that's completely poor.

"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."

What - like my grandmother, giving my dad on gravy at 6 weeks, because it was common sense that he needed more than milk at that age?

The problem with your childs IQ is that you start to imagine there is a maximum value they could attain and then see all of your decisions as knocking off points if they aren't up to scratch.

In reality, without us to teach them, interact with them and make them smile they would be truly stunted individuals...so really we should pat ourselves on the back for creating such fabulous creatures in the first place....

I am trying not to think what damage my PND is doing....as there is nothing more likely to trigger depression than thinking about how your depression is reducing your childs capacity for greatness....

Entrophy I had PND(thanks to bf).

None of my 3 should be here at all.My dtwins as embryos were so ropey my IVF clinic wanted to bin them,they'd been frozen for ages.Their pg was fraught and I was scanned daily at one stage.

My dd was a natural miracle I conceived when the twins were 6 months during which time I ate/drank/stressed a plenty whilst running after babies/toddlers. When dd arrived I had PND.

Well I have 3 most content,well adjusted,healthy,happy, lovely kids who are all without exception doing amazingly well at school.

Motherhood is a marathon not a sprint and these studies just don't take that into account. Ignore studies!!!!!!!!!!!

now now MrsH studies show that BFers have a much LOWER rate of PND than FFers....and you can never know it was BF that caused the PND....

I personally have had a wonderful time of BFing...(so much so that I think they may reject me as a peer supporter) and often felt that BFing was the only thing keeping me sane at all....I debated for months about stopping the BF so I could get on the anti-Ds....but decided against as I was too afraid that they wouldn't sufficiently compensate...oh the research I read on that....

Anyway I am very glad to hear of your happy children! You are right that it is a marathon although for the first 6 months there is little to do except fret about feeding choices and the relative environmental impact of different nappies...oh and worry about the role of ever increasing gender stereotyping on the aspirations of an entire generation....no wonder I am tired all the time...

MrsH - similar thing was said at my IVF clinic re. my embryos (who are now 2 yr old girls :) )

Entropy - sorry to hear about your PND, and your worries about how it may affect your DCs. I think one reason I am so defensive about all these things is because I simply cannot take on board all the information which is doled out which in my opinion serves little purpose other than for us to beat ourselves about the head as to what a shit job we're doing.

You make it sound like GF is broadcast on the national news shagamund. She has published her experience in books which people are free to buy or ignore. She does not prescribe her advice to all and sundry.

It is my experience that people give up breastfeeding because they cannot cope with the 'all or nothing' attitude which is prevalent in the UK, an attitude I haven't seen on the continent where breastfeeding is encouraged in a normal, don't-get-your-knickers-in-a-twist way. If you've never experienced the kind of level headed help which is available in other countries, you may not know how things really can be different. After all, we are all women trying to do the best for our children. In my experience, I thank god I didn't give birth to my twins here. I doubt very much I'd have succeeded at breastfeeding them, but have no doubt I'd have been served up a massive dollop of guilt no matter which way I'd turned.

In my case Entrophy it was def the bf-I loathed it.Horses for courses and all that.

I went on a PND course and several of us sniffling into our tea had PND from bf(didn't enjoy it,found it suffocating,dreaded each feed etc).

For some it's completely the reverse which is why I don't think we should live our lives through "studies".

ahh yes well, I guess dreading then hating Bfing 7 or 8 times a day is probably pretty damn correlated to feelings of depression...

for me it was the only time I could 'get' what was going on....and I could look into DD's eyes....and she seemed contented...and I could relax.

I was gutted that she was a fast eater...10 mins max and have been equally gutted every time she has dropped a feed.

Time not spent feeding was hell...being yelled at and not knowing why or what to do. Not understanding what she was thinking or why she was unhappy...or if she was happy then wondering when it would stop and getting stressed...gah.

Well anyway I know it will be all my fault when she doesn't make it on the G&T register...

I just dont know how to say 'no'. I mean once you know that cutting a particular corner might be damaging in some way then how do you draw the line and say yes but I need to just get on with life?

"now now MrsH studies show that BFers have a much LOWER rate of PND than FFers"

actually a very well respected researcher in that area said that PND is lower in PROBLEM FREE BFers, but problematic BFing can be an increasing factor in PND and the research is often generalised and misquoted as above!

Londonlottie - she is the biggest selling author on the subject of new parenthood in the past 10 years and she presents herself as an authority on new parenthood and babies.

I hate her. Her success is due to her persuading mothers that all babies are pretty much the same and that they can all be made to conform to feeding and sleeping patterns which suit the lifestyles of the adults caring for them.

I hate her. I hate the fact that parents following her advice on putting their baby to sleep in his or her own room are not told that they're increasing their baby's risk of SIDS.

I hate the fact that her bf advice puts some mums at risk of mastitis and bf failure. I think her books should come with a health warning.

MrsHeffley - great to hear the story of your 3 DCs - they all sound like miracles in a way - but then maybe so is every baby !

I don't intend to test my DDs IQ when she is older. Even if, by some chance, her IQ is determined, I most certainly will not be thinking "oh, but it could have been 5 points higher if only I fed her on demand".

Shagmund many many mothers are huge fans.You hate her but her advice has and does work for many.For many her books are an absolute godsend.I know countless mums who are GF fans.

I think your views are rather extreme.There are many styles of parenting I don't agree with but I don't hate their authors but then I'm not trying to make everybody parent the way I do it ie I'm not of the opinion it's my way or the high way.

Re GF nobody has to buy her books.People do because the advice she gives has helped many mothers begin to enjoy motherhood and she comes highly recommended that isn't to say she's everybody's cup of tea. Attachment parenting is my idea of parenting hell but I couldn't give 2 hoots if others want to try it.

This article about milk production explains why some babies can go between feeds longer than others. Basically, milk production slows when the breasts are full of milk and speeds up when they are empty. Storage capacity varies quite dramatically between women and it can also differ in the same women from one child to the next. Some babies really can get enough milk with 3 hours between feeds and other babies really do need to feed every 1 to 2 hours to get the same amount of milk. I had a friend who didn't set out to do GF, but just had what she called a 'natural Gina baby'. She nursed on demand, but the demand was only there every 3 hours. Whereas when I went longer than 90 minutes my baby lost an incredible amount of weight and it severely damaged my milk supply. I was exceptionally lucky that I was able to restore it and BF for a long time; not everyone can, no matter how hard they try.

Breastfeeding on a 3 hourly schedule will work very well for some mothers/babies but really won't for others. The other thing that can happen with feeding to a schedule is that it will work fine for 3 to 6 months and then mothers find their milk 'just vanishes' and they don't know why. I am all for informed decisions so I do think GF should make it clear that a certain percentage of people who follow her BF advice will encounter problems and then let mums decide, armed with all the information about the potential consequences of the decisions they're making, what's important to them and what risks they are/aren't willing to take.

OP, please don't let the story worry or upset you. 'Science news', reporting on research is generally so terrible, badly written and totally twisted that one seldom finds out what the actual research said unless one digs out the paper. Often what is reported is totally misunderstood by the media or it's a bad study and reading every news story about parenting is just not worth it as large percentage of them are a) bollocks and b) often about things we can't do much about anyway. We are all doing our very best.

shagmund - sorry you find her so offensive. As MrsH says though, for every person who hasn't even bothered to read her books but still spouts off about her with that opinion, there are tons who have cherry picked the bits that worked for them and found the idea of a routine, and of finding out what someone with loads of experience of working with newborn/young babies has found about ways to make them sleep and feed well.

The thing is, you see, when I look back on my experience, and hung out with my friends babies who were also following a similar routine, all I could see were happy babies who were feeding well and regularly. Who were developing good sleep patterns at a young age which have seen them through to childhood and beyond. Who love sleeping in their own bed or cot and have never thought of it as being abandoned or shoved 'elsewhere', because it's always been their space and has been claimed as such. Parents who love their children but don't think their life has to end in order to demonstrate that fact. Who don't think five years of sleeplessness is obligatory to earn some sort of love medal.

It's so hard to get any of these things across to those who 'hate' her. I put my twins in their own room at 2 weeks old and challenge anyone to tell me that wasn't the right thing for me and for our babies. Or to try and tell me that in doing so, I was in some way robotically following her or someone else's orders and that my children were in any way at risk.

"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"

how on earth are you supposed to structure it so that a small or jaundiced or hypotonic baby takes in more milk than he is naturally able to?

mind you, I have often thought that the only solution for this family would be a total re-structuring of dd

cory - I can only talk about my own experience and those of friends who followed similar routines. My twins were small at birth (5lb 6 and 6lb 1) and the smaller of the two was jaundiced. We were in hospital for a week. To start with they were always put on the breast for a few minutes but we would top up with bottles because they had lost quite a lot of weight. After about a week/ten days, they were strong enough to get sufficient nutrition from breastfeeding alone, and from that point on I always had them on the breast for about 20 minutes, then had a short break/nappy change before offering them a 10-15 minute top up. This 'system' of offering a top up - usually I think this is the other breast but in my case it was the same breast as I was feeding twins - meant they always seemed full up enough to last until the next feed. Because they were small at birth from the get-go I fed them every three hours at 7am, 10, 1, 4, 7 and 10pm and then leave them until they woke during the night.

Of course this didn't work 100% of the time, for example during growth spurts. At which point I would of course feed them if they seemed hungry.

Re the room thing.Ironically my GF twins were in our room until 6 months but my dsis's non GF babies were out asap.

GF doesn't actually say obey my rules or fail as a parent she simply offers advice.You can take all of it,part of it or non of it.I followed all of it bar the room thing and blackout blinds-worked a treat.

London pmsl at the "love medal".

BluebellsAndButterflies that article on milk supply really is interesting.
I've never intended following Gina Ford but as a second hand bookseller I had plenty of opportunity to leaf through her books - I don't get the impression that they are research-based or referenced and I agree with you, shagmundfreud, that it would help if there was some reference to problems or risks that might occur.
Those "cherry-picking" authors quoted in the Guardian on the other hand, Penelope Leach and Oliver James, are both psychologist and have thus learned to conduct, read, interpret and refer to studies, and still appear to my reading as much much less prescriptive than Gina Ford (who, according to Wikipedia, wanted mumsnet closed down at some stage by the way).

And as to the UK being oh so pushy on the breast-feeding on demand front - not in my borough. Yes, the official advice is to breastfeed from the start and exclusively for six months, yet the nearest breast feeding drop in is not offered at the three children's or health centres closest to me but at the fourth (admittedly still not a million miles away) and the feeding group health visitor sounded quite astonished when I said I was waiting with solids until 6 months and made me think I had to then get my baby onto three meals a day within a week to avoid that looming iron-shortage. Oh, and the midwives in hospital offered to take the baby off my hands and give formula so I could have a rest after long induction and emergency CS.
Yes, there is lots of different advice out there and no, you're not going to turn your children into morons by sticking to a schedule (I believe the OP has long been reassured and stopped following this thread), but to dismiss any study just because it didn't concur with what you did personally is a bit narrow-minded in my book. This current study is admittedly still quite vague and nobody suggested anything else, but, again, looking at brain-develment etc. ( Why Love Matters ), it is nothing new, that responsive care and a good 'communication' between carer and baby is indeed very important. An no, I'm not suggesting that anybody on this thread is not responsive or that Gina Ford mothers in general aren't, but maybe the most extreme routine-followers are in some ways less tuned in to their babies' needs and thus the slightly different outcome may just be confirmed in further studies. And like I said earlier, the IQ is the lesser worry, general mental health is much more important.

I fed both mine 'on demand' but it seemed to me it was really 'when they were hungry'! As a result they 'never' cried - I can remember ust one evening my DS did and Dad took hom for a ride in the old Landrover which amazingly sent him to sleep(though that probably affected his IQ ) I cannot remember my daughter crying but I supposed she must have done when she fell over as a toddler. One slept in bed next to me - couldn't be warm enough right under the duvet - and when he woke and wriggled I put him on. DD however hated being hot and slept next to the bed in a Moses basket so I heard her stir too. They are all different and it is really about tuning in to them and doing your best (but not trying to be perfect!) I think not crying but finding the world a delight was the best thing for them - it is never as simple as the media like to present it!