Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My lovely 6 month old daughter has blessed us with her sleeping 11/12 hours a night from around 3 months. However, as soon as we started weaning 3 weeks ago, she's ready for her day to begin at 4am! I'm completely exhausted and going back to work full-time in 2 weeks. Can anyone offer any advice or tips as to why this is happening? I am very grateful she still sleeps 9 hours but just confused as I thought they slept longer when they started eating proper food? Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
Yes I agree with Pickle, I think it must be that she has dropped her milk intake, which will still be the bulk of what is sustaining her at this stage. I think babies are supposed to have about 600ml / 20oz of milk between 6 and 12 months, which is harder to gauge if breastfeeding obviously. Is she still having a big feed - 7oz ish, at bedtime? I think for some babies that's pretty crucial in getting them through to morning even when they're eating large portions of solids later on

Maybe visit the HV? I went yesterday and she said as long as they get over 600ml then that is sufficient.


I don't feel that would be enough for my baby but only because he is not showing signs of wanting to drop any milk feeds despite eating a fair amount of solids.


Otherwise Saffrons suggestion is a good one ie offer some milk first. I do this at the lunchtime feed.

Other people's suggestions sound sensible and probably worth following them first, but the other thing to think about is daytime sleep. I had some issues with earlier waking around this age and a slightly shorter morning nap (30mins) and later long lunchtime one seemed to help a lot (12.30). She'd dropped her afternoon nap already.

Thank you SO much guys! I give her food first then milk and have wondered if it should be the other way around! Will she still want food after drinking her milk? I'm definitely trying that tomorrow. She used to take 8oz each feed then we started weaning and she's down to about 5oz. Saw the health visitor yesterday but she said it was fine and I shouldn't be complaining she sleeps so long! Ooops :-S

As far as sleep goes, she has 30 mins mid morning, an hour early afternoon then 30 mins late afternoon around 5pm. I try to keep her awake so not to sleep so late but bless her, she can't keep her eyes open! Hopefully she won't need that 5pm nap for much longer.

I have to say that it seems amazing to me and probably those in the same boat as me when I hear parents complain about a baby that has slept through for months and then begins feeding once in the night or waking early. Try feeding at least 3 times a night from birth (he is nine months old) plus frequent early wakings, 2 hour periods of wakefulness in the night and refusal to go to sleep after the 'magical' bedtime routine has been in place for months. Count your lucky stars!!

Cheryl you can try spacing the milk feeds and solids meals so that she can manage both if she doesn't want one straight after the other?


Lots of babies and toddlers seem to be able to guzzle a bottle of milk and eat a slap up meal 5 mins later, but many, mine included, don't have that big an appetite!


You could give a bottle at 7am, then breakfast at 8am, solid lunch at 12:00, bottle at 2:30, solids meal at 5:00, bottle at 7:00 etc, so that there is always a space between them?

That doesn't sound like too much daytime sleeping to me... we usually need a little catch up in the afternoon if we have much less than 1.5 hours at lunch.


Agree with hellosailor about spacing feeds. Weirdly mine seems ready to consume any volume of solids/milk late morning and evening, but won't touch breakfast until an hour or so after her first milk feed.


You might find things get better when you introduce proteins (if you haven't yet). That is supposed to help overnight sleep I think?!

Hello sailor --- I was thinking I might try that today unless she screams for her milk of course! Thanks again everyone, always find this website so helpful!


Gill and Joe --- don't apologise! I felt a bit guilty when I read your comment and thought me saying I was exhausted was a slight exaggeration. I completely and utterly sympathise with you and admire that you sound like you're still smiling through it all! I hope things settle down for you

From memory I think I did what Hellosailor suggests too (new baby not quite on solids yet and it's been 4 years since #2 was at this stage). I definitely did milk when they woke, followed by breakfast once we were organised, and a milk feed mid morning followed by lunch just before nap time.


Good luck, hopefully re-jigging things a little will help.

Stupid and cheeky comment from health visitor. Changes like this should be investigated for the good of the child and the mother. In this case it seems like it could be insufficient milk, in which case what were you supposed to do? Keep waking at 4am then go to work and have a hungry baby. I'd be tempted to complain about the hv attitude. Anyway, hope increasing or changing the milk offering is working and good luck with starting back.


Gillandjoe, sorry to hear your trials. :-( have you been to the dr? I assume you are bf? Could you or your husband give a (heavier) bottle instead? Some of the babies who sleep well are doing so on formula and it makes the mother's life so much easier. Give it a go for the late feed perhaps?

Cheryl, do you think she is waking from hunger or could it be something else? There is a checklist in one of the books (not sure what one... Sears?) which goes through everything from teething to scratchy sleep suits etc...


I'm pretty sure my baby's 4am waking was teeth pain, as we are mixed feeding and I use the hipp goodnight milk so I think he was not waking from hunger.


But I don't really know.... Just counting my blessings he is waking at 530/6am now which makes me a little bit tired instead of 4 am which makes me insane.

I'm now convinced its lack of milk because I was stupidly giving her solids first then milk. Have now switched around and she slept 11 hours last night! I know it may not last but a good sign anyway. I've cut down her porridge at breakfast as I think this was putting her off keeping her feeds up during the day.


Dulwich girl -- I'm grateful for you making the comment about the HV. She made me feel awful when I left the clinic!

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

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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