Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ditto what Quids says, as long as baby is eating, sleeping, pooing and having wet nappies then do not worry. I find babies vary completely when it comes to sleeping so I never focused on sleep, just weight gain ( so he is eating enough) and wet nappies!
my 10 wk old was definitely on a 2 hour cycle during the day at around 2 weeks. She was sleeping for up to 16 hours a day and at night would do about a 3 hour stretch. My midwife said that i should ensure that I was feeding at least every 3 hours, but she was demanding it at least every two hours daytime. At 8 weeks she changed almost overnight to a three hour cycle of daytime feeding and now naps for about four hours during the day (in 3 naps) and goes longer at night.
I also have a 2 week old and to be honest, he sleeps most of the time and there's no set structure to when he naps. He tends to wake up every 2-3 hours for a feed, has a tiny bit of awake time and then nods off again. He sometimes goes a bit longer at night but the midwives told me not to let him go any longer than 4 hours without a feed at this age. I did have a vague flick through the Gina Ford book and almost laughed out loud and her routine for a 2 week old baby. Apparently they shouldn't be sleeping more than 5 hours in the daytime in total! The past few days he's been very unsettled though with wind so I'd enjoy the sleepy bit while it lasts.

My daughter is 6 months and at 2 weeks she slept most of the time! Usually woke 3 hourly although sometimes longer. Midwife told me to wake her every three hours to feed her, tried it once but learnt you can't force a sleepy baby to feed!! Didnt bother again and she still gained plenty of weight - was born at 48th percentile and increased to 91st!! At 6 months she is still around 80th!!


Completely agree with HeidiHi, as long as the weight gain is fine dont worry! They are all different!

Mine is very greedy, so no issues with weight gain, but I think when she sleeps, she is sleeping for too long (4-5 hours, maybe even up to 6), then waking and guzzling too much milk (cluster feeding I think they call it), which then makes her windy (I think too much volume in a short space of time for her wee stomach to process), and then it's hard to get her back to sleep because she is uncomfortable. And then because it's taking her longer to get back to sleep, she is then super tired by the time she does sleep and then sleeps longer, hence starting the cycle over again! Phew. It was quite exhausting to type that.


i think I am going to try and stop her sleeping for much longer than 3 hours. More frequent feeds I think. Also may help sort out my massively engorged bazookas!


Thanks forumites!

How long a new born sleeps can vary differently from breast fed to bottle fed. Formula is thicker and takes longer to digest than bottle milk so baby may sleep 3-5 hours. Breast fed babies sleep 2-3 hours.


No one likes to mention it because frazzled tired mummies might be tempted to switch from breast to bottle.


Obviously, how much baby drinks and what mum eats play a factor too.

I think you're right she may be sleeping a bit too long. The huge infrequent feed isn't cluster feeding (that's lots of small feeds in a short period) Cluster feeding is a good thing because it encourages your milk supply and the baby feeding from empty breasts also gives them a lot of the high fat hindmilk. Wwaiting till you're engorged idn't so good for many reasons, you risk mastitis, it doesn't stimulate milk production (in fact, the opposite) and the baby gets a bellyfull of the sugary milk that has reduced in fact content while it stands in the breast (= green poo, windy tummy, as you say0


i think trying to get in 5 day time feeds approx 3 hours apart ending with one at about 11pm then letting her have her longer period of sleep if she wants to, is the way to go. Good luck!


My twin II was a sleepy feeder and had to be woken. Going too long can also leave them a bit jaundiced.

Everyone banged on to us about not leaving them longer than 3 hours especially overnight. THe reason cited was that the baby's blood sugar level could tip them into hypoglycaemia which is obviosly v dangerous.


I now think it's rot personally and would allow longer than 3 hours and ESPECIALLY o/n.

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone banged on to us about not leaving them

> longer than 3 hours especially overnight. THe

> reason cited was that the baby's blood sugar level

> could tip them into hypoglycaemia which is

> obviosly v dangerous.

>

> I now think it's rot personally and would allow

> longer than 3 hours and ESPECIALLY o/n.


I don't really agree. A sleepy baby that is reluctant to feed will tend to sleep longer and longer and feed less and less, lose weight and in a very small newborn, you can be facing rehospitalisation before you know it. I think you do have to ensure the baby is getting enough milk, esp for the first 2-3w.

I had that with my first during the first week. I think it's termed a 'sleepy baby'. He'd sleep for 4-5 hours and then I would struggle to get him to feed. We stupidly thought we'd got lucky with a super chilled baby. After a week he was sent into hospital having lost too much weight. We ended up having to feed him on formula with a bottle to get some nourishment into him.


But that was just me being a clueless first time mum. I think my milk had not properly kicked in. If baby is gaining weight and is otherwise thriving then I doubt this is likely to happen. Still, it's worth keeping a close eye.

Thing is, if the baby isn't feeding often enough (tiny tummy after all and might need waking to get the feeds in) then it will lose weight and become a bit weak and feeble, jaundiced and struggle to feed... my twin II was not a good latcher and had to have milk syringed down her throat every few hours as I couldn't get her to feed unless the MWs were there to help. I'm sure if we'd let her sleep she would have been back in hospital. Her weight was borderline at 10 days old (11% down on birthweight) and I know it was on its way up by then.


I think the term "feeding on demand" is a bit misleading as when you're new to it, you assume the baby will ask....

I remember vividly the first night at home with our son (I'd been in hospital for 2 nights post birth, struggling with feeding problems) - he went to sleep at 8pm and the next thing we knew it was 6am. We thought we'd hit the jackpot, couldn't see what all the fuss was about, our newborn baby was a champion sleeper.


However 2 days later he was the colour of Bart Simpson, needing cold baths to wake him up enough to feed, and didn't weigh much more than our cat.


Quite a steep learning curve :-$

Jaundice is not the main issue here. A tendency to jaundice could be exacerbated by a poor feeder failing to flush out liver toxins resulting in the yellow colour. THe real danger is when a baby might go hypoglycaemic as aresult of his/her low blood sugar levels.


One thing you could do is to have a blood test done for the glucose level after eg a three hour sleep?


PS many congratulations! I'd love to be in your shoes with a newborn all over again. xxx

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jaundice is not the main issue here. A tendency to

> jaundice could be exacerbated by a poor feeder

> failing to flush out liver toxins resulting in the

> yellow colour. THe real danger is when a baby

> might go hypoglycaemic as aresult of his/her low

> blood sugar levels.


But a few posts ago you said you think that is rot?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Indeed ianr, I didn't have time to include all Royal Mail options, thanks for that extra bit, they have been spot on for me, I use them a lot and have never had any issues with delivery, touch wood!
    • People are switching to electric cars irrespective of fuel prices.  100s of millions that could be spent on hospitals and schools for example have been lost due to fuel duty freezes and a supposedly temporary reduction.  Fuel is relatively cheap at the moment.  With a stonking majority when is it time to rightly take on motorists? Farming, I simply referred to Paul Johnson of the IFS who knows more about the economy that you, I and Truss will ever know. Food?  Au contraire.  It's too cheap, too poor quality and our farmers are squeezed by the supermarkets and unnatural desire to keep it cheap.  A lot less takeaways and more home cooking with decent often home produced, food should benefit most in our society. Be honest you do t like Labour. 
    • In fact there was a promotional leaflet came through the letter box today, for sending by RM's parcel post by buying online.  There are also options mentioned for having the labels printed  at a Collect+ store or at a Parcel Locker.  More info at https://www.royalmail.com/.
    • Is it? Let's see  Farming is a tough gig with increasingly lower returns, if farms have to sell off land to pay inheritance tax it will reduce their ability to survive. Which in real terms could mean more farm land lost and more reliance on imported food which sees money flowing out, not in to the country.  But I guess as long as you get cheap food that doesn't concern you 😉  Lol "what about the cars"  again Mal... like a broken record....  Governments know that squeezing car drivers for more fuel duty will drive down income from taxes as people switch to electric, which would leave them with a black hole in income. Guess the fuel duty is a fine balancing act tiĺl enough electric cars have been sold to raise tax revenue from their use. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...