Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My son is 6.5 months old and a lovely happy baby but I am exhausted after solely breastfeeding and broken sleep. We have tried unsuccessfully to get him to take a bottle since 6 weeks and just now running out of energy to express and keep trying. My husband has been trying mainly but we have thrown away so much milk as it just isn't happening. He has now started to bite when feeding so I know I need to do something! And just to be able to take some time away would be so welcome as I can't at the moment.

What I really would love is for someone who knows babies to come and physically help me with this and other baby related stuff as I am getting quite down.

Please PM if you think you can help.

Hello,


are you looking to reduce / stop breastfeeding or just to get to a more manageable routine which would include a break for you i.e. him taking a bottle?


i had a sleep consultant who helped me a lot with routine. Nicola Watson, lots of reviews on here. she helped me with a lot more than the routine stuff - just helped me to clarify my thoughts and figure out what i wanted to do.


my son fed constantly off me overnight (co-sleeping) and i was so tired and starting to resent him. i decided to start him on a dummy (unusual as he was 10months old!!!) and this worked, i would just break the seal on my nipple and quickly swap it out for the dummy. i can't remember if he was already taking a bottle then, so this might or might not be helpful.


maybe a few stretches of unbroken sleep would help you to catch up on rest and think about what you want to do - would a night nanny be an option for you guys? or someone you trust (a friend, a mum) who could take the baby for 4-5 hours to get you to rest?


also someone on here (Strawbs maybe?) had a really good routine where she slept from 7pm-midnight and then her partner took over from midnight-4am or something like that. so always a guaranteed bit of sleep.


for me, i always had a sleep in so my partner would get up with the baby at 6am and keep him away until 8 or 9 - so no matter what hell the night was i knew i had a 2-3 hour stretch to look forward to.


this might be all too garbled, i don't know, but good that you are asking for help, it can be really shit.

Hi,


I echo the recommendation for Nicola above who helped us beyond just the sleep, with advice on feeding and routine.


On the bottle front, we had similar issues with my oldest. Are you warming the milk in the bottle up? (This was unnecessaary for my eldest but my youngest wouldn't touch milk that wasn't warmed up until he was nearly two). Another thing to try if you haven't already is to go out when your partner tries to feed your baby with a bottle - they're clever little things who can sense when the real thing is around, even if you're in a different room! You could also try using a different bottle - Tommee Tippee worked for us but there are many other tests you could try.


Good luck! Xx

At 6.5m he doesn't need to feed at night. The digestive system has matured sufficiently at this age that it shuts down during sleep (like with adults - we don't wake up hungry!). Nicola Watson (Child Sleep Solutions) helped me too to get my babies to sleep. She also had good information on feeding and nap routines.


You say you have been trying to get him on a bottle since six weeks. Weaning him off night feeds and getting him to sleep well, will already make a world of difference to you. If you want to stop breastfeeding you could either see if you can transition him straight to a cup, a sippy cup, a doidy cup or a straw whatever he takes, rather than a bottle. I used a nanny at the time to get mine to take a bottle. I used a lady called Annette, who I would recommend, but she is super busy. Otherwise she will have a recommendation for someone else. She spent the day with me and we only offered bottle for the day, whenever she got distressed we would soothe, distract etc, just before her lunchtime nap she took her first milk through the bottle, by the end of the day she took a bottle feed. You do have to be consistent though, offer a minimum of 2 bottle feeds a day (ideally more), preferably at the same times.

Also, when trying him on the bottle you don't *have* to use breastmilk, you could just use formula. Then if he doesn't take it it doesn't feel like such a waste, expressing on top of feeding a baby and trying him to take a bottle is such hard work. I know that technically he's less likely to take it if it's formula, but hey, if you're adamant he needs to accept a bottle, then he might as well also learn to accept formula! (He'll be fine, honest!)

MarianaTrench Wrote:

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

> At 6.5m he doesn't need to feed at night. The

> digestive system has matured sufficiently at this

> age that it shuts down during sleep (like with

> adults - we don't wake up hungry!).


This is open to a lot of variation, and as a blanket statement of physiology is less than accurate. Probably each baby should be assessed on his or her individual development and observed needs.


An individual's experience of hunger is not solely linked to digestive activity, nor is the desire for food linked only to hunger. The perception of hunger arises from a complex interplay of digestive, endocrine, and neurological functions, all a which show significant interpersonal development and variation throughout our life times.


In addition to which, the desire for food is sometimes driven by a need for comfort in both babies and adults. That this is a psychological need, rather than a requirement for nutrients, does not make it any less real (though I am not suggesting you implied as such). The age at which babies no longer require night time feeds is based more on our personal perceptions and experience than is it on actual physiology. And it is also dependent on how scenarios are defined, e.g. what length of time constitutes 'night time'. xx

Im so sorry you're having a hard time. Going through all the faff and indignity of expressing and then ending up throwing it away would make anyone feel wretched. Trying formula in a bottle sounds sensible to me, less emotionally (and literally!) draining. You can get those little single cartons so no need to fiddle about with powder or worry about whether it's sterile. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I hope you get some good help soon. You could try searching for a private midwife or doula, they can help with all sorts of baby things not just birth.


I found the first six months of motherhood pretty grim (and I absolutely hated expressing) but it does get better.

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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