Demand feeding versus fed to schedule:

[KateW]

EXACTLY RhubarbGarden! Well said. GF recommends 'top-up' feeds before naps and split feeds.

[randomv]

RhubarbGarden Wrote:

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

> "A schedule mum would not feed her child between

> scheduled feeds, by definition"

>

> Actually, in the early days of implementing the GF

> routine, if the baby asks to be fed between

> scheduled feeds, then the baby is fed. GF states

> that a hungry baby should never be denied a feed.

> What happens once the routine is established is

> that the baby doesn't demand feeds because its

> needs are met before it gets hungry, so it doesn't

> have to cry for food.

Ssshhhhh....don't let anyone know what it actually Says in the book...they might have to change their preconceived opinions on a book they've never read!

Having had a foot in both camps (demand feed/sleep for 9 months then GF routine) I'd say this is definitely true. All the 'professional' advice I had in the early days was that if he cried I should feed him. This wasn't what he needed all the time at all! Sometimes, I realised with hindsight, he woke and cried because he was still tired and needed more sleep. My LO cried less once on a routine and once established it made it easier for me to understand the reason for any crying, eg hungry, not had enough sleep etc. As a result he was a much happier baby.

Different strokes for different folks, but it's important to challenge any misunderstandings of what schedule/routine are.

[Saffron]

RhubarbGarden Wrote:

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

> "A schedule mum would not feed her child between

> scheduled feeds, by definition"

>

> Actually, in the early days of implementing the GF

> routine, if the baby asks to be fed between

> scheduled feeds, then the baby is fed. GF states

> that a hungry baby should never be denied a feed.

> What happens once the routine is established is

> that the baby doesn't demand feeds because its

> needs are met before it gets hungry, so it doesn't

> have to cry for food.

GF also contradicts her own advice in her own CLB book (and yes, I HAVE read it), by saying that coming off the schedule causes sleep and digestive problems (which btw, there is no medical basis for her claim), but this thread is NOT ABOUT GF.

I find it sad that so many posts have just fallen back to debate about sched v cue feeding, rather than trying to explore ways that support can be offered to mothers who want to demand feed in the early days (rem the study looked at 4-week old infants, not older babies), as clearly this research has demonstrated a benefit to the child of cue-feeding though it flags up that this can be tough for some mums.

So, any HELPFUL suggestions, anyone???

[sunbob]

trying to explore ways that support can be offered to mothers who want to demand feed in the early days

I think that there could be a national drive to highlight to new Mums that newborns demand feeds very often and that this iis normal and healthy and will help to get supply established. This sounds really obvious to those who already know it, but I think that there are many areas of the country where people still perceive newborn's hunger as meaning the mum doesn't have enough milk.

[randomv]

Fair point Saffron, but the question was asked and as such it's important that people understand what it means to have a routine and in my experience I was told to feed on 'demand' just that wasn't always what he was actually demanding.

I'm just not sure how helpful this kind of research is. What about second and third babies who have to fit into a schedule due to school runs and the activities of an already busy household? Even those mothers who have been furthest down the AP, feeding on demand parenting style would have to make compromises and do things differently. And 30 or 40 years ago most of us were fed on a 3 or 4 hour schedule as that's what was advised (my mum had us brought to her when we were 'due' a feed whilst in Maternity Hospital)

[cashewnut]

I don't think anyone doing a routine should worry too much about this research. From the paper:

The variable of interest in this study is whether children were fed according to a schedule. When babies were 4 weeks old, mothers were asked: ?Is your baby fed (either by breast or bottle) on a regular schedule (e.g. every 4 hours)?? Mothers were asked to reply ?yes, always? (7.2%); ?yes, try to? (23.4%) or ?no, fed on demand? (69.4%).

The results were based on the difference between the 'yes always' group and the 'yes try to' group (which was characterised as 'tried but failed' to follow a routine). The 'yes try to' group had similar academic performance to the 'fed on demand' group. I'm not sure how many people would answer 'yes always' to this question, even if they were mostly doing a routine - perhaps only those that really would make the baby wait until the next scheduled feed, even if it was hungry?

Also, the 'yes always' group had some other characteristics e.g. smack their children more often, don't read to them as often as other parents. The study attempts to control for this, but without a randomised control this is never going to be perfect.

I do think Saffron's point is interesting though. I tried to read books that represented a range of approaches before the arrival of my little one but found that the more helpful books tended to advocate some sort of routine (perhaps I missed out on some good ones though). As a result we leaned towards that approach, but if there had been more support about how to follow the baby's lead a bit more maybe we would have gone more in that direction.

[RhubarbGarden]

'GF also contradicts her own advice in her own CLB book (and yes, I HAVE read it), by saying that coming off the schedule causes sleep and digestive problems'

Can you tell me where it states this? Because I read that book cover to cover, referred to it daily and cross referenced constantly and I never saw that.

[Saffron]

Page 44, 2nd paragraph states that feeding on demand is a common cause of colic. There is no medical truth in this statement as I understand it. Cue feeding does not cause digestive problems related to colic.

There is more contradictory advice about sleep/feeding on pp 82, 89-100, particularly the advice not to feed after certain times before the next scheduled feed, as it will disrupt the 7/7 sleep schedule which is the only schedule therein given as acceptable for good sleep. However, there is no medical evidence to show that all babies need or will sleep exactly the same amount of time. There are many more examples of this throughout the book.

G. Ford, "The Contented Little Baby Book" (1999) Random House.

[Saffron]

This kind of advice does little/nothing to support women who choose to cue feed but may find it difficult.

Thinking about the kinds of things that would have helped me with cue feeding and sleep patterns, I'm struck by how different the postpartum care was for my friend who lives in Oxford. Midwives made standard home visits to her for much longer and the HVs were more knowledgable about infant feeding and sleeping.

In addition, midwives saw her again around 7 months postpartum to review the birth and ensuing months. The mother's feedback then aided the midwives in improving their future service.

Rather than rehashing moot points, I would like to see this kind of postpartum support offered to all mothers. Why is it not so?

[Belle]

I'm not sure who would be the right person to provide the advice? Even my community midwives (Brierly) encouraged 3 hourly feeding from early on - obv not strictly so, but they advised me to try to do that - perhaps partly as they were aware that I have an older child to look after too.

[Saila]

Sounds like that was the right thing for you and your baby Saffron - but i have to say that *thank god* i went down the schedule route.

I dont think me and my OH would be together if the past two years were sleep-deprived years, causing me to be 'grumpy' and irritable. I'm a nightmare after a bad night's sleep.

One ex-city friend of mine, gave up her job when she had a baby and went down the demand-feeding route. I was quite surprised as i assumed she'd be a schedule feeder, just cos of her personailty being ultra organised etc. When i asked her about this she said, tbh I want to do this cos frankly i'd be bored if i did the schedule thing - it's too easy...and i'm not working etc. That made sense to me. Seemed logical etc

So everyone does different things for different reasons dont they? personally, i can't imagine having *two* kids without some sort of schedule and/or a good nights sleep. Sleep to me is VERY important. Obv not so much in first 6 months. But getting into a pickle with sleep associations could mean you have no sleep for many more months,even years. Something I would not cope with personally.

It sounds like there's a sort of 'demand feeding mission' that everyone should follow and you're 'wrong' if you dont do it when I read these threads. Insinuating you're a 'bad-mum' if you're not exhausted and up all night with your little one.

re GF - if i remember from her book, she says that the families she helped who had 'suspected colic' all suddenly recovered once they started a schedule. She theorises that in fact it wasn't colic all along, could have been down to constant grazing leading to indigestion? Cos why else did they *all* snap out of it? She was careful not to say there was a definite link. She just said that in her experience they all cleared up after the feeds were spaced out more.

When she refers to 7/7 working well. she always says that she has found this to be a natural routine that most babies fall into easily. I'm not sure she uses words like:

"7/7 sleep schedule which is the only schedule therein given as acceptable for good sleep"

The language was just not like that - she laid out rational and practical ways of appraoching the first 6 months for those ppl, like me, who didn't have a clue but knew they'd be back in work soon and didn't want to have sleep associations down the line.

[Fuschia]

I don't see why demand feeding is linked to being up all night? I find a quick feed then straight back to sleep s the best recipe for me, and have rarely felt sleep deprived except with sick kids .. And that included demand feeding twins, or a new baby with 2 yo twins ...

After first couple of months, demand feeding is usually spaced out anyway

[RhubarbGarden]

Saffron, perhaps you have an old out-dated copy of GF. The quotations you describe do not feature in the up-to-date 2006 version. Nowhere does she state that demand feeding causes colic, on p44 or anywhere else - that would be a bizarre claim quite frankly. The only references to colic are as already described by Saila. GF also offers ways to adapt the routine, so is not inflexible and does not suggest that 7/7 is the only 'acceptable' schedule for good sleep.

As Saila says, the language is quite different from how you suggest.

I'm sorry if you feel this is unnecessary re-hashing of moot points, but I don't think it is helpful to anyone to spread misinformation about routine feeds/naps.

[helena handbasket]

Saila, you might find it interesting to know that I arrived to the UK with an infant on a Gina Ford type routine, and had NEVER HEARD of HER.

She doesn't really exist outside of the UK, at least not in North America.

Yet somehow, babies still end up on a vaguely GF routine. Coincidence?

I demand fed until I realized that some greedy little sausages will demand demand demand all night long if you let them. Anyone who believes that babies can't train their parents into crazy making habits hasn't met my son. On a good day I'm only ever one step ahead of him at best.

ETA: I wouldn't want anyone to feel pressure to demand feed until exhaustion because of this report. That's not helping anyone either.

[sophiechristophy]

Women need more support and information when it comes to breastfeeding. How has it happened in our society that we have become deskilled in such a critical human skill? It is shocking to me that 6 months exclusive breast feeding has been found to tbe "unrealistic for many" in this study. How have we lost touch with our ability to meet the most basic of needs of our babies?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/15/breastfeeding-advice-unhelpful-to-mothers

[Saila]

Not sure this is 'on topic' as both demand feeding and schedule feeding involve bf?

But as we're onto support for new mums re bf. I totally agree it's lacking. I was amazed to find out

Midwives aren't trained in bf. So you have to request help from a bf counsellor (who are amazing when

You can get hold of one!)

Slightly off topic all this tho!

[sophiechristophy]

on topic i think as saffron had raised the issue of postpartum infant feeding support for women.

[Saila]

The article which was put up for disucssion in the original post refers to babies who are fed on demand (whether f. fed or bf) so I'm not sure it is on topic.

Support for bf is definitely worthy of discussion, I just don't see the relevance to this particular thread.

Edit to say: another misconception about gf is that she is somehow anti-bf, so your post just comes ax as slightly misleading wihtin this thread

[sophiechristophy]

ok, new thread ahoy....