Are bottle-fed babies generally bigger/heavier than breastfed babies?

[birthofawoman]

I met a 6-month-old very cute, very chunky baby the other day (my DS's cousin) - much chunkier than I imagine my 6-week-old will be at 6 months (although me not being able to imagine it doesn't mean he won't be). My DS has always been on the smaller side... I carried and measured small during pregnancy, and he weight 6 lbs 10 oz at birth. Currently, he's gaining weight perfectly but is still considered a more petit baby.

The 6-month-old baby is formula fed, and it got me thinking (just out of curiosity) whether bottle fed babies (whether fed breastmilk or formula) generally gain more weight than breastfed babies? If that were the case, I imagine it'd be because they're made the finish a bottle (someone else's idea of how much they should feed), whereas breastfed babies take exactly as much as they wish/need and stop once they're satisfied that they've reached that point? I could be completely off the mark here, I'm just curious!

Or could it be to do with what's in formula? When I told my mum about the chunky baby, her first comment was "He'a on formula, isn't he?".

Would love to hear your responses! It's 4am and my curiosity has gotten the better of me tonight!

DS is FF. Still on the 25th centille, still hasn't grown into a lot of his 3-6 month stuff (7 months old) and generally tiny compared to other babies his age

I'm not sure how they're feed plays an awful lot of difference over genetics.

It just depends on the baby. Breastmilk is metabolised better but breastfed babies tend to have feeds much more often so in a day may feed much more.

The main difference is that a breastfed baby, no matter how fat, is not considered unhealthily overweight. If you have a very chubby bottle fed baby the health visitor will often suggest you put them in a diet.

Both my boys have been chunks.

One EBF and one FF from 6 weeks. Both nearly 9lbs at birth (both slightly early too) so late fair bit bigger than yours to start with.

Oh and my FF baby was never 'made' to finish a bottle. He was FF on demand. Milk often left.

I will say though, with DS we still feed on demand. So as and when we wants it rather than whatever is on the box.

Anecdotally I have noticed the opposite and that the chunky babies I know tend to be BFed.

I thought there was generally a different weight gain profile for babies that are BF or FF but I can't remember where I read that now.

Sorry, a lot of typos in my original post! Thanks for your responses! Basically, the answer is "no" ☺️

Also interesting to know that not all bottle-fed babies are 'made' to finish a bottle. I guess that's a slightly unfair assumption that I had based on the bottle-fed babies I've been around in my lifetime (24 years, so not that many). And, as I'm exclusively breastfeeding, there are just certain things about bottle-feeding that I don't know or can't imagine!

Thanks, again!

No.

This is anecdata but many of the breastfed babies I know (including my own) have been on the higher end of the percentile chart, and I know a few FF babies who have been small. I think it’s genetics.

If you look up the growth curves for breastfeed babies v formula fed babies it is different. I can’t remember off the top of my head but I think on average breastfed babies might lose more weight and gain more slowly to begin with, but they do catch up.

Having said that my breastfed baby was on the 75th when born, shot up to ~96th for a while (he was very fat for the first 6 months or so) and then slowed right down and has been back on the 75th for a while. In his case he might have been comfort feeding a bit (he had reflux but we didn’t realise to begin with ) or it might just have been normal.

DC1 was just over 6lb when he was born and was long and skinny. I used to compare him with my best friend's DD, born 3 weeks earlier, who was a behemoth. They were both EBF until 6 months.

DC2 was over 9lb when she was born and stayed resolutely on the 98th centile - not wavering even slightly. Also EBF, but for 7 months. Another Michelin baby.

The milk they take in isn't as relevant as their genetic make-up. All three have evened out in the wash and are regular sized kids.

My breastfed baby was 50th percentile and now he’s fully weaned he still is. This makes me think it’s down to the baby. Ds was never a greedy baby and still isn’t, he eats to maintain. I have heard that breastfed babies don’t over eat and learn when they’re full better due to not being encourages to drink the rest of a bottle but no idea if there’s any truth in it.

d*

I've noticed the opposite - the BF babies I know are all massive. I think it's because some BF mothers interpret "feed on demand" as "feed whenever baby is upset (about anything)". So the BF babies I know are constantly stuck to their mothers' tits. It's really unhealthy, imo, to teach a child to comfort eat. I'mve noticed that with these babies, this continues into toddlerhood - the children snack constantly, and seek food whenever they are upset.

^ not sure I agree with that

The percentile charts used to be based on bottle fed babies (not sure now). My midwife always said to ignore them because breast fed babies tend to be lighter generally

Bigger isn’t better though

Bf baby fed on demand here and dropped centiles for weight. The HV wasnt concerned as breastfed. Certainly appeared that way annecdotally locally that bf babies weren't as chunky to the extent there was surprise at a chunky one.

My mum also would say that it was due to ff - although maybe ff was different in her day.

However now the kids are nuch older noone would know which was a chunky babyy or how they were fed. Many people prised the leg rolls which mine never had! I dont think mine ar particularly extra slim now theyre older children. I think it all evens out when onto solid food.

Both of my breastfeed babies were 91st centile plus, dd2 was 98th centile. She’s slimmed down now but in my experience it’s not the case. Some people seem to think breastfeeding means they are under fed/you can’t tell how much they’re having etc but I do wonder how the human race would have survived if this were the case! Maybe it’s more to do with the individual child?

I disagree with Game! I fed on demand and did always offer for upset, as did most ib my circle. Also BLW. They seem in contrast quite able to self regulate and will often leave cake halfway through etc now at 9, or choose not to eat something.

Labradoodle - thats exactly what my mw/hv said. They expected bf babies to be a bit lighter/not follow the ff chart so it must come from somewhere!

Both my children were FF and both were/are on the lowest centile and are still really skinny! It's all genetics.

My ds was a proper little chubster at 6 months, people couldn’t believe he was ebf!

He started slimming down when I started weaning him onto solids actually.

Game research has consistently shown that formula fed babies are more likely to be overweight in childhood and adulthood and are more likely to develop diabetes because bottle feeding can switch off the hormonal pathway at that tells you when you are full. This is why pacing bottle feeds is now encouraged to help prevent this. You absolutely cannot overfeed a breastfed baby because they are in control of the pace of the feed. ‘Shoving a tit’ in a baby’s mouth for comfort has been the accepted method for millennia and it makes no sense in biological terms for that to be harmful, and indeed it isn’t. Western society has become very detached from what is normal. www.drmomma.org/2009/07/breastfeeding-in-land-of-genghis-khan.html?m=1

I think it's because some BF mothers interpret "feed on demand" as "feed whenever baby is upset (about anything)".

Interesting. So not feeding on demand means, what? Feeding on a set schedule when the mother thinks it's appropriate, and ignoring hunger cries from a baby? Really?

Babies who aren't hungry don't want food.

And I'm fairly sure that Mums who formula feed also 'feed on demand'.

Wow thats a really interesting article. It must have been lovely to parent in a community where you are praised for mothering and feeding!
I certainly felt very isolated . I cant imagine having a whole summer away from a 4 year old though.

Some patterns of FF can lead to higher weight gain but it's not the case that all FF babies are going to be bigger, or that FF parents are necessarily overfeeding their children. Though the mechanics of bottlefeeding do make this easier to do without realising - it can be quite tempting to get them to just take a bit more/just finish this bottle etc, this is against current advice and it's not something you can do with BF in quite the same way. These practices are also less likely these days and were more common in past generations when a fatter baby was praised.

The fact you've got this variance in FF babies is why the growth charts were changed to reflect BF babies, but it doesn't mean BF babies are meant to be small (Though some are) or that you can tell a BF from a FF baby by looking at them.

My first EBF baby was born on the 50th centile and remained there. My 2nd EBF baby was born on the 98th centile and is still there at 2! She put on nearly 1lb a week in her first 6 weeks.

Oh and neither were constantly ‘stuck to my tit’ , like with any baby I fed them when they were hungry, and when they weren’t hungry they didn’t feed.
At 4 and 2 they are both great at regulating their appetites.