arguments about feeding

[teapot]

My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.

The argument is, do we

a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
soon as he cries

b) try to distract the baby so there is a longer gap and he is
hungrier and hopefully feeds better

teapot

[Belphoebe]

"teapot" > wrote in message
om...
> My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
> then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
>
> The argument is, do we
>
> a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
> soon as he cries
>
> b) try to distract the baby so there is a longer gap and he is
> hungrier and hopefully feeds better

teapot, six weeks is a classic "growth spurt" time, and this does sound like
a growth spurt. During this time, your baby really does need to nurse when
hungry. Just know that this round-the-clock stuff *does* pass, and lo and
behold, your baby is visibly bigger! :)

You of course have to use the bathroom, eat, drink, etc. As much as
possible, it helps to have DH and/or others bring you food and drink, and
otherwise you dash and take care of your comfort breaks whenever you can get
them.

I know it's hard to believe it when you're going through it, but this
constant feeding *does* pass. Then, before you know it, you'll find your
baby wanting to do *other* things--play, explore, interact--which is fun,
but also more complicated (as in "hey, it used to be all I had to do was
take him to the breast and he'd be happy--what does he want now?). ;)

Belphoebe, with a nearly 4.5 month-old DS who is definitely more complicated
now, nak

[She's A Goddess]

"teapot" > wrote in message
om...
> My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
> then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
>
> The argument is, do we
>
> a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
> soon as he cries
>
> b) try to distract the baby so there is a longer gap and he is
> hungrier and hopefully feeds better

Not sure who's choosing which side, but the answer is (a). Looks as though
having just gotten to feeling back on an even keel after the first growth
spurt you've hit the second. This too shall pass and then you get a bigger
break until around three months.

--
Rhiannon
Madison Sophia - 9/6/01
Owen Grady - 6/23/03

[JoelnCaryn]

>My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
>then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
>
>The argument is, do we
>
>a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
>soon as he cries

This one. It's what everyone else has said, a growth spurt. It'll stop when
he's 21, but it'll slow down considerably within a week, with longer spaces
between feeds. :-)

--
Caryn
mama to Oscar, 10/20/02

[Sue]

It's perfect time for a growth spurt and unfortunately you probably should
just feed the baby every time he wimpers unless his diaper or something else
is the caue. It will pass in a few days or even up to a week. Just remember
he is building your supply. Is there someone at home that can bring you food
and water and/or other things you might need? Hang in there. :o)
--
Sue
mom to three girls

teapot > wrote in message
om...
> My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
> then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
>
> The argument is, do we
>
> a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
> soon as he cries
>
> b) try to distract the baby so there is a longer gap and he is
> hungrier and hopefully feeds better
>
> teapot

[Bruce and Jeanne]

teapot wrote:

> My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
> then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
>
> The argument is, do we
>
> a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
> soon as he cries
>
> b) try to distract the baby so there is a longer gap and he is
> hungrier and hopefully feeds better
>
> teapot

a) - it's just easier to feed the baby when he cries than try to
distract a crying hungry baby who becomes a crying hungry and now
*angry* baby.

Teapot, DS is closing in on 7 weeks (on Tuesday) and on Friday night, he
actually let me sleep for 3 hours (9 to 12 midnight). So there is hope.

Jeanne

[teapot]

(JoelnCaryn) wrote in message >...
> >My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
> >then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
> >
> >The argument is, do we
> >
> >a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
> >soon as he cries
>
> This one. It's what everyone else has said, a growth spurt. It'll stop when
> he's 21, but it'll slow down considerably within a week, with longer spaces
> between feeds. :-)

I was hoping to wean by the time he is 21 :)

thanks for everyones replies. My bloke hes made me a big pot of pasta
and i m not expecting to get anything done today, not after yesterdays
trip into town (15 minutes walk away) when i had to stp and feed him
twice on the way back. seems funny now that i was shy of bf in
public, ill get a tit out anywhere if it makes the moo happy.

teapot and barnacle moo boy - 6 weeks and a day

[Akuvikate]

I'm going to vote A with just enough B thrown in to maintain your
sanity. If he's hungry, he's gotta eat, and I suspect most 6 week
olds are not all *that* distractable when it comes to food (at least
mine's not). At the same time, you need to pee and eat and feel human
enough that you don't totally resent him. For a while the Bug had an
uncanny ability to sense when I was in the shower, no matter how
asleep and well fed she was, and decide right then that she was
ravenously hungry. DH was able to sing/dance/bounce or give her a
finger to suck (put the pin in the grenade, as he called it) long
enough for me to finish, dry off, and get to the chow chair. She
wasn't thrilled with it, but she lived. I felt better being clean. B
probably wouldn't work so well as a response all day every day, but
here and there it has its place.

Best of luck getting through it -- Bug's not quite so bad, but she has
been something of a barnacle the past week or so. I thought it was
over on Saturday, but she started up again Sunday.

Kate
and Bug, June 8 2003

(teapot) wrote in message >...
> My 6 week old is back on hourly feeds. He feeds himself asleep and
> then he is really awake when I try to get him off the breast.
>
> The argument is, do we
>
> a) drop everything (eating, peeing, sleeping) and feed the baby as
> soon as he cries
>
> b) try to distract the baby so there is a longer gap and he is
> hungrier and hopefully feeds better
>
> teapot

[Jenn]

In article >, Joshua
Levy > writes


>THE BABY WHISPERER contains lots of great advice to help you understand
>why your baby is crying.

Doesn't tell you that the author left her children to go live on another
continent though does it? Or that she was investigated by Social
Services for suspected child neglect? Or that she refused to pay any
maintenance? Didn't think so.

>
>Feeding your baby whenever it cryies will teach your baby many
>bad lessions:
>1. Crying brings food (no matter what the real problem is).
>2. Babies get fed every hour (if the want it or not).
>3. Non-food needs will be ignored (because all crying means hunger).
>
>Joshua Levy

Joshua, as usual you're talking bo****s.
--
Jenn
UK

[Melissa]

"Joshua Levy" > wrote
> I vote for (c): Buy or borrow the book THE BABY WHISPERER by Hogg,
> and use it's advice to understand your baby better. Your answer
> (a) is obviously wrong buy it shows the underlying problem you need
> to fix. You should feed the baby whenever the baby is hungry (NOT
> whenever the baby cries!) Babies cry for many reasons. If you feed
> the baby every time she cries, you will feed him when he is bored,
> gassy, hungry, sleepy, etc.

Except that the author has no expertice except for as a mother. She
advocates such things as nursing for 18 minutes on a side because, according
to her, that's when the foremilk turns to hindmilk. Too bad there's no
scientific evidence for that and that it changes during the day and is
different for each woman. The LC who runs my bf group says to burn that book
(and BabyWise, while we're at it) and stick with your gut (or Dr. Sears'
books). You know what the right thing to do is so trust yourself.
--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03

[Joshua Levy]

"Melissa" > wrote in message news:<nJbTa.118430$Ph3.15241@sccrnsc04>...
> "Joshua Levy" > wrote
> > I vote for (c): Buy or borrow the book THE BABY WHISPERER by Hogg,
> > and use it's advice to understand your baby better. ...

> Except that the author has no expertice except for as a mother.

Wrong. She worked for years as a nanny. It is interesting to compare
her experience with Dr. Sears (for example). He is a doctor for 1000s
of children, but as a doctor only sees them for a few minutes every
couple of months. Hogg on the other hand has helped raise scores of
children, spending days, weeks, or months with each one.

So would you rather take advice from someone who sees kids maybe 20
minutes once or twice a year? Or someone who took care of a baby
for months at a time? It's easy for Sears to say vague things like
and let the parents deal with it. But Hogg was the person raising
the baby. Her advice is specific and useful, not vague.

> She
> advocates such things as nursing for 18 minutes on a side because, according
> to her, that's when the foremilk turns to hindmilk.

Wrong. I challenge you to find any part of her books which says this.

> The LC who runs my bf group says to burn that book
> (and BabyWise, while we're at it) and stick with your gut (or Dr. Sears'
> books). You know what the right thing to do is so trust yourself.

Ah! Have you even read this book? If not, why comment on it?

As for doing the right thing, the OP suspects that she is not, that
is why she asked the question. The answer is simple (if politically
incorrect in some circles): feed a baby when the baby is hungry, NOT
everytime the baby cries. Babys cry for many reasons, and there is no
advantage to feeding a gassy baby, a bored baby or a tired baby (for
example).

Joshua Levy

[Joshua Levy]

Jenn > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Joshua
> Levy > writes
>
>
> >THE BABY WHISPERER contains lots of great advice to help you understand
> >why your baby is crying.
>
> Doesn't tell you that the author left her children to go live on another
> continent though does it? Or that she was investigated by Social
> Services for suspected child neglect? Or that she refused to pay any
> maintenance? Didn't think so.

Translation: you don't know anything bad about the book, so you need
to badmouth the author. It is certainly true that Hogg divorced her
husband, then later moved to the US, where she restarted her career
as a nanny and later an author. It is certainly true that her left
behind ex-husband is now unhappy and complains to all who will listen.
(Do you believe that people should not be alowed to divorce? That
divorcees should not be alowed to move or start new careers? I don't.)

However, the question should be: is the book useful to someone in the
original posters situation. The answer is "yes", in a big way! While
other books say vague things about feeding when the baby is hungry,
THE BABY WHISPERER says specific things about what too look for in a
baby to see if the baby is hungry. Not just crying, but body language
as well.

If you really think that feeding a baby every time it cries is a good
idea, then why not try the following experiment. Every time you say
something, eat something! Remember, crying is all a small baby can do,
so they cry to communicate all their wants. So feeding them whenever
they cry is a silly for them, as eating every time you talk is silly
for you.

Joshua Levy

[Chookie]

In article >,
(Joshua Levy) wrote:

> > Except that babies don't eat if they are not hungry and babies who have a
> > problem *other* than being hungry won't be pacified by being fed.
>
> This is well known not to be true. Babies have a suck reflex.

I think you are both right. A baby *may* be comforted by suckling when the
problem is not hunger, but IME it won't be for long. When DS developed wind
at 2am one night, we had no idea -- we just thought he was hungry as the cry
was so similar to his hunger cry. Suckling comforted him, but he would
quickly wake up crying again. We stayed in the feed-sleep-cry cycle for two
hours until the bubble went down!

> Sure, but we're talk about advice to feed the baby every time the baby
> cries, and that is wrong.

Were we? My response was:

> Barring other causes, yes [feed when he cries].

You are correct to say that there are other cues (rooting behaviour,
snuffling, etc) before the baby gets hungry, but when the baby is feeding very
frequently, you tend to try to hold off responding till you HAVE to.

> Even during the biggest of growth spurts, a baby that age does not need
> to eat every hour. They've gotten in the habit of eating every hour,
> that is all. Sure a growth spurt may make a baby eat more and more
> often than otherwise, but every hour? That's learned behavior.

How do you know that? I can agree that a one-year-old might not need to eat
every hour, but would hesitate to make the same claim about a six-week-old.
Yes, the disadvantage of demand-feeding is the frequency, but it is outweighed
by the advantages:

- better establishment of, and fewer ongoing problems with, supply
- quicker return to birth weight
- breastfeeding continues for longer
- less engorgement and nipple soreness in early weeks
- more effective prevention and treatment of jaundice (hyperbilirubinaemia,
not the serious kind) than other supplements

I refer you to chapter 8 of
http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/New_Publications/NUTRITION/WHO_CHD_9
8.9.pdf

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

[Clisby Williams]

Circe wrote:

>Joshua Levy wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>Even during the biggest of growth spurts, a baby that age does not
>>need to eat every hour. They've gotten in the habit of eating every
>>hour, that is all. Sure a growth spurt may make a baby eat more and
>>more often than otherwise, but every hour? That's learned behavior.
>>
>>
>>
>Nonsense. First of all, a 6-week-old is too young to have learned any
>behavior. Newborns haven't lived long enough to establish any real patterns
>of behavior. And since they can't read a clock, it is absurd to suggest that
>they are eating every hour because they have been *taught* to. A baby can't
>possibly be demanding a feed on an hourly basis simply because an hour has
>elapsed because they don't have the first clue how long an hour is. There is
>obviously something biological telling them they are hungry/thirsty/want to
>suck after that hour has passed.
>
>Second of all, during a growth spurt, it is *entirely* possible and even
>normal for a baby to eat every hour or so. The reason is because while
>supply is catching up to demand, there often isn't very much milk available
>at each feeding and so the baby doesn't always get completely full. As a
>result, baby tends to need lots of short feeds to build supply so that the
>feeds can space out again to longer, more complete feeds.
>
>
>

Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to 2.5
months. I never even
noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
*possibly* have eaten?

Clisby

>
>

[Circe]

Joshua Levy wrote:
> "Circe" > wrote in message
> news:<_PXSa.14436$u51.12043@fed1read05>...
>> Joshua Levy wrote:
>>> I vote for (c): Buy or borrow the book THE BABY WHISPERER by Hogg,
>>> and use it's advice to understand your baby better. Your answer
>>> (a) is obviously wrong buy it shows the underlying problem you need
>>> to fix. You should feed the baby whenever the baby is hungry (NOT
>>> whenever the baby cries!) Babies cry for many reasons. If you feed
>>> the baby every time she cries, you will feed him when he is bored,
>>> gassy, hungry, sleepy, etc.
>>
>> Except that babies don't eat if they are not hungry and babies who
>> have a problem *other* than being hungry won't be pacified by being
>> fed.
>
> This is well known not to be true. Babies have a suck reflex.
> If you get the teat in the right place, the baby will suck.
> (It's called a reflex because the baby doesn't choose to do it,
> the baby's body just reacts this way, and it doesn't matter
> if the baby is hungry or not.)
>
But if there is some other problem, feeding will rarely pacify the baby for
any length of time. While it is true that babies might initially nurse when
they are crying for some other reason, I have never found it to work for
more than a few seconds if there was some other problem.

>> Sometimes,
>> a not-very-hungry baby will nurse for comfort without getting much
>> milk, but there's nothing wrong with this.
>
> True, but if the baby was crying because it was gassy (for example),
> then sucking is not going to help. Ditto if the baby was crying
> because it was bored, or for some other reason.
>
Agreed. Now you're validating what I said above. Nursing won't help if
hunger or a need to suck was not the problem. So what's the problem with
*offering* to breastfeed if you think it's possible that hunger or a desire
to suck is what's making the baby cry? I grant, if it's quite clear to you
that hunger/sucking need *isn't* what's troubling the baby, offering to feed
would be a nonsensical first response. But in my experience, when young
babies are crying, they are nearly always doing so because they are hungry
or want to suck. Breastfeeding nearly always worked. When I tried other
responses first with my very young babies, they tended to keep right on
crying. I quickly figured out that trying the least likely solution first
just meant having a baby who was unhappy for longer. Why put myself and the
baby through more unhappiness than absolutely necessary?

>> Babies *do* occasionally need to suck even
>> when they are not hungry and since some won't take a pacifier or
>> suck a pinky--two of mine wouldn't--nursing them is the only way to
>> meet this need.
>
> Sure, but we're talk about advice to feed the baby every time the baby
> cries, and that is wrong. Occasionally sucking for comfort is fine,
> but has little to do with advice to feed a baby every time the baby
> cries.
>
But if the baby cries and nursing pacifies him, it doesn't matter whether he
was hungry or just wanted to suck. I don't know what you mean by
"occasionally", anyway. I see nothing, frankly, wrong with offering to nurse
as a first response to crying unless it is absolutely clear that there is
some other problem. As I said above, my experience with three babies is that
nursing worked more often than not to stop the crying (suggesting that it
*did* meet their needs) and that when it didn't, it was always quickly
obvious that there was some other problem that I needed to set about
addressing instead.

>> The baby in question is at the perfect age for a growth spurt, as
>> other posters have noted. It is entirely possible that he is hungry
>> every hour during this time. It will pass.
>
> Even during the biggest of growth spurts, a baby that age does not
> need to eat every hour. They've gotten in the habit of eating every
> hour, that is all. Sure a growth spurt may make a baby eat more and
> more often than otherwise, but every hour? That's learned behavior.
>
Nonsense. First of all, a 6-week-old is too young to have learned any
behavior. Newborns haven't lived long enough to establish any real patterns
of behavior. And since they can't read a clock, it is absurd to suggest that
they are eating every hour because they have been *taught* to. A baby can't
possibly be demanding a feed on an hourly basis simply because an hour has
elapsed because they don't have the first clue how long an hour is. There is
obviously something biological telling them they are hungry/thirsty/want to
suck after that hour has passed.

Second of all, during a growth spurt, it is *entirely* possible and even
normal for a baby to eat every hour or so. The reason is because while
supply is catching up to demand, there often isn't very much milk available
at each feeding and so the baby doesn't always get completely full. As a
result, baby tends to need lots of short feeds to build supply so that the
feeds can space out again to longer, more complete feeds.

And finally, babies get thirsty as well as hungry. It is quite possible on a
hot day for a baby to be thirsty if not hungry every hour, even in the
absence of a growth spurt. *I* get thirsty every hour or so and want
something to drink about that often when it's hot, so I see nothing
particularly bizarre or objectionable about the idea that a tiny baby might
desire the same.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"How a seller can improve their home's value" -- newspaper headline

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article >,
says...
>
> This is well known not to be true. Babies have a suck reflex.
> If you get the teat in the right place, the baby will suck.

Baloney. In all four of my children, if they were upset for some
other reason (diaper, hot, cranky, colic, or what have you) sticking
a nipple in their mouths only made their cries sound muffled. That's
not saying that they never nursed for comfort, because they did, but
if they really wanted something else, nursing would not pacify them.

Michelle
Flutist
--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00)
Zachary Mitchell (01/12/94, began fostering 09/05/01)
Theona Alexis (06/03/03)

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article >,
says...
>
> However, the question should be: is the book useful to someone in the
> original posters situation. The answer is "yes", in a big way! While
> other books say vague things about feeding when the baby is hungry,
> THE BABY WHISPERER says specific things about what too look for in a
> baby to see if the baby is hungry. Not just crying, but body language
> as well.

You're obviously doing what you have accused other of -- badmouthing
a book without reading it.

None of my baby books say vague thing about feeding when the baby is
hungry, and they discuss in depth the body language of a hungry baby
BEFORE it starts crying, which is a LATE sign of hunger.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00)
Zachary Mitchell (01/12/94, began fostering 09/05/01)
Theona Alexis (06/03/03)

[Circe]

Clisby Williams wrote:
> Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to
> 2.5 months. I never even
> noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
> *possibly* have eaten?
>
Sounds a bit like my oldest. He might have eaten closer to every 90 minutes
during wakeful periods (which weren't always during the day to start with),
but he liked to nurse for 30-45 minutes each time, so I spent a *lot* of
times during those first few weeks nursing him. My younger two nursed less
frequently--more like every 2-2.5 hours most of the time, with some shorter
spacings.

But yeah, some babies just like to nurse very often or for a long time. All
of mine would have wailed like the dickens if I'd tried to something *other*
than feed them when they were hungry or reduce the length of their nursing
sessions. Certainly, breastfeeding less wouldn't have made *anybody* happy.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"How a seller can improve their home's value" -- newspaper headline

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[cshardie]

Michelle J. Haines wrote:
> Baloney. In all four of my children, if they were upset for some
> other reason (diaper, hot, cranky, colic, or what have you) sticking
> a nipple in their mouths only made their cries sound muffled.

Been there!

--
Suzanne http://cshardie.tripod.com
sittin' on the dock of eBay, watching the bids roll away
--Richard Powers, "Literary Devices"

[Circe]

Michelle J. Haines wrote:
> Baloney. In all four of my children, if they were upset for some
> other reason (diaper, hot, cranky, colic, or what have you) sticking
> a nipple in their mouths only made their cries sound muffled. That's
> not saying that they never nursed for comfort, because they did, but
> if they really wanted something else, nursing would not pacify them.

When he was 9-12 months old, my youngest would *bite* me if I tried to get
him to nurse when he wasn't interested. I learned that lesson pretty darned
fast!
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"How a seller can improve their home's value" -- newspaper headline

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[Irrational Number]

Clisby Williams wrote:
>
> Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to 2.5
> months. I never even
> noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
> *possibly* have eaten?

Okay, so I don't feel bad that Pillbug
has been feeding every hour these past
couple of days and sometimes stays on
for that whole hour (well, 50 minutes...
I get a few minutes rest...).

-- Anita --

[teapot]

Irrational Number > wrote in message >...
> Clisby Williams wrote:
> >
> > Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to 2.5
> > months. I never even
> > noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
> > *possibly* have eaten?
>
> Okay, so I don't feel bad that Pillbug
> has been feeding every hour these past
> couple of days and sometimes stays on
> for that whole hour (well, 50 minutes...
> I get a few minutes rest...).
>
to 2.5 months, hey, We are almost there!

I have just had 10 minutes at the computer - without the limpet, but I
am sure I will be back on breast duty any second. He is definatly
growth spurting - he was 7lbs 8oz 2 weeks ago and is now a nicely
rounded 9lbs 4. His knees are fat! I am fine with the feeding all
the time and the clingyness when not feeding as long as I really
forget about achieving anything else, I am trying to think of this
motherhood stuff as my job now and that helps. Its fine when there is
some food left ready for me but a nightmare if I have to try to make a
sarnie or something. And my shoulders ache !

teapot and moo boy 6 and a half weeks

[teapot]

Irrational Number > wrote in message >...
> Clisby Williams wrote:
> >
> > Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to 2.5
> > months. I never even
> > noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
> > *possibly* have eaten?
>
> Okay, so I don't feel bad that Pillbug
> has been feeding every hour these past
> couple of days and sometimes stays on
> for that whole hour (well, 50 minutes...
> I get a few minutes rest...).
>
to 2.5 months, hey, We are almost there!

I have just had 10 minutes at the computer - without the limpet, but I
am sure I will be back on breast duty any second. He is definatly
growth spurting - he was 7lbs 8oz 2 weeks ago and is now a nicely
rounded 9lbs 4. His knees are fat! I am fine with the feeding all
the time and the clingyness when not feeding as long as I really
forget about achieving anything else, I am trying to think of this
motherhood stuff as my job now and that helps. Its fine when there is
some food left ready for me but a nightmare if I have to try to make a
sarnie or something. And my shoulders ache !

teapot and moo boy 6 and a half weeks

[KC]

You should measure his length too for fun. larry told me they would
measure the length after a growth spurt, so I did it too. I actually
measured her midway in her growth spurt (her spurt lasted 9 days) and
then again a few days later and in 2 days she grew an inch and a half
- amazing.

KC


(teapot) wrote in message >...
> Irrational Number > wrote in message >...
> > Clisby Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to 2.5
> > > months. I never even
> > > noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
> > > *possibly* have eaten?
> >
> > Okay, so I don't feel bad that Pillbug
> > has been feeding every hour these past
> > couple of days and sometimes stays on
> > for that whole hour (well, 50 minutes...
> > I get a few minutes rest...).
> >
> to 2.5 months, hey, We are almost there!
>
> I have just had 10 minutes at the computer - without the limpet, but I
> am sure I will be back on breast duty any second. He is definatly
> growth spurting - he was 7lbs 8oz 2 weeks ago and is now a nicely
> rounded 9lbs 4. His knees are fat! I am fine with the feeding all
> the time and the clingyness when not feeding as long as I really
> forget about achieving anything else, I am trying to think of this
> motherhood stuff as my job now and that helps. Its fine when there is
> some food left ready for me but a nightmare if I have to try to make a
> sarnie or something. And my shoulders ache !
>
> teapot and moo boy 6 and a half weeks

[Stephanie]

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message >...
> "Circe" > wrote in message news:<_PXSa.14436$u51.12043@fed1read05>...
> > Joshua Levy wrote:
> > > I vote for (c): Buy or borrow the book THE BABY WHISPERER by Hogg,
> > > and use it's advice to understand your baby better. Your answer
> > > (a) is obviously wrong buy it shows the underlying problem you need
> > > to fix. You should feed the baby whenever the baby is hungry (NOT
> > > whenever the baby cries!) Babies cry for many reasons. If you feed
> > > the baby every time she cries, you will feed him when he is bored,
> > > gassy, hungry, sleepy, etc.
> >
> > Except that babies don't eat if they are not hungry and babies who have a
> > problem *other* than being hungry won't be pacified by being fed.
>
> This is well known not to be true. Babies have a suck reflex.
> If you get the teat in the right place, the baby will suck.
> (It's called a reflex because the baby doesn't choose to do it,
> the baby's body just reacts this way, and it doesn't matter
> if the baby is hungry or not.)
>
> > Sometimes,
> > a not-very-hungry baby will nurse for comfort without getting much milk, but
> > there's nothing wrong with this.
>
> True, but if the baby was crying because it was gassy (for example),
> then sucking is not going to help. Ditto if the baby was crying because
> it was bored, or for some other reason.
>
> > Babies *do* occasionally need to suck even
> > when they are not hungry and since some won't take a pacifier or suck a
> > pinky--two of mine wouldn't--nursing them is the only way to meet this need.
>
> Sure, but we're talk about advice to feed the baby every time the baby
> cries, and that is wrong. Occasionally sucking for comfort is fine, but
> has little to do with advice to feed a baby every time the baby cries.
>
> > The baby in question is at the perfect age for a growth spurt, as other
> > posters have noted. It is entirely possible that he is hungry every hour
> > during this time. It will pass.
>
> Even during the biggest of growth spurts, a baby that age does not need
> to eat every hour. They've gotten in the habit of eating every hour,
> that is all. Sure a growth spurt may make a baby eat more and more
> often than otherwise, but every hour? That's learned behavior.
>
> Joshua Levy

My feeding approach must have been simplistic. Cry:

- Check diaper. Dry. Check.
- Check gas. No gas. Check.
- Offer pacifier. Never took it. Gave up after about 3 days.
- Offer boob. Good for food AND fun. No crying. AAAAAAAAHHHH.

If he did not want it, he did not take it. But he was particularly non-oral.

:)

Stephanie

[Stephanie]

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message >...
> "Melissa" > wrote in message news:<nJbTa.118430$Ph3.15241@sccrnsc04>...
> > "Joshua Levy" > wrote
> > > I vote for (c): Buy or borrow the book THE BABY WHISPERER by Hogg,
> > > and use it's advice to understand your baby better. ...
>
> > Except that the author has no expertice except for as a mother.
>
> Wrong. She worked for years as a nanny. It is interesting to compare
> her experience with Dr. Sears (for example). He is a doctor for 1000s
> of children, but as a doctor only sees them for a few minutes every
> couple of months. Hogg on the other hand has helped raise scores of
> children, spending days, weeks, or months with each one.
>


Doesn't Doc Sears have a couple zillion kids of his own?

> So would you rather take advice from someone who sees kids maybe 20
> minutes once or twice a year? Or someone who took care of a baby
> for months at a time? It's easy for Sears to say vague things like
> and let the parents deal with it. But Hogg was the person raising
> the baby. Her advice is specific and useful, not vague.
>
> > She
> > advocates such things as nursing for 18 minutes on a side because, according
> > to her, that's when the foremilk turns to hindmilk.
>
> Wrong. I challenge you to find any part of her books which says this.
>
> > The LC who runs my bf group says to burn that book
> > (and BabyWise, while we're at it) and stick with your gut (or Dr. Sears'
> > books). You know what the right thing to do is so trust yourself.
>
> Ah! Have you even read this book? If not, why comment on it?
>
> As for doing the right thing, the OP suspects that she is not, that
> is why she asked the question. The answer is simple (if politically
> incorrect in some circles): feed a baby when the baby is hungry, NOT
> everytime the baby cries. Babys cry for many reasons, and there is no
> advantage to feeding a gassy baby, a bored baby or a tired baby (for
> example).
>
> Joshua Levy

[Akuvikate]

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message >...
feed a baby when the baby is hungry, NOT
> everytime the baby cries. Babys cry for many reasons, and there is no
> advantage to feeding a gassy baby, a bored baby or a tired baby (for
> example).
>
> Joshua Levy

True, but I find that when my 7 week old baby (same age to the day as
the OP's) spontaneously starts crying it's almost invariably because
she's hungry. If she's not crying from hunger the cause is pretty
obvious -- we're changing her diaper, I just bonked her head, or she's
really gassy. Periodically DH and I start thinking she's gotten more
complex and wonder why she's crying -- but somehow that at those times
she never seems to stop until she gets the boob. Sometimes I think
hunger might only be a part of why she's crying (she's both hungry and
gassy or hungry and tired), but even then, if I take care of the
hunger she's able to cope with the gas or tiredness.

Kate
and Bug, June 8 2003

[KC]

Clisby Williams > wrote in message >...
> Heck, my son ate every hour on the hour during the day from birth to 2.5
> months. I never even
> noticed any growth spurts - I mean, how much more often could he
> *possibly* have eaten?
>
> Clisby
>
My baby ate almost constantly during the day during her 6 week growth
spurt, but she did still sleep pretty good at night, so I guess it all
evens out.

KC

[KC]

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message >...
> If you really think that feeding a baby every time it cries is a good
> idea, then why not try the following experiment. Every time you say
> something, eat something! Remember, crying is all a small baby can do,
> so they cry to communicate all their wants. So feeding them whenever
> they cry is a silly for them, as eating every time you talk is silly
> for you.
>
> Joshua Levy

But, I don't need to double my weight in 6 months, and a newborn does.

KC

[KC]

(Joshua Levy) wrote in message >...
> Babys cry for many reasons, and there is no
> advantage to feeding a gassy baby, a bored baby or a tired baby (for
> example).
>
> Joshua Levy

Ahhh but there are several advantages to the mother: a calmer baby
whose not screaming at you while you do the other thing the baby
needs. Early on when my baby had a dirty diaper and was crying I
would nurse her for a few minutes before changing her so that she was
calmer for the change. Now she likes getting changed, so I don't do
that anymore, but at the time that was a nice advantage for me.
Another advantage is that putting the baby to the breast builds
supply. I sometimes offer the breast when the baby has made no signs
of being unhappy about anything like right before we go into a store
because I would rather tank her up in my car than in the store, so
there are plenty of advantages to sometimes feeding a baby even when
they are not hungry.



KC

[Hillary Israeli]

In >,
Joshua Levy > wrote:

*"Circe" > wrote in message news:<_PXSa.14436$u51.12043@fed1read05>...
*> Joshua Levy wrote:
*> > I vote for (c): Buy or borrow the book THE BABY WHISPERER by Hogg,
*> > and use it's advice to understand your baby better. Your answer
*> > (a) is obviously wrong buy it shows the underlying problem you need
*> > to fix. You should feed the baby whenever the baby is hungry (NOT
*> > whenever the baby cries!) Babies cry for many reasons. If you feed
*> > the baby every time she cries, you will feed him when he is bored,
*> > gassy, hungry, sleepy, etc.
*>
*> Except that babies don't eat if they are not hungry and babies who have a
*> problem *other* than being hungry won't be pacified by being fed.
*
*This is well known not to be true. Babies have a suck reflex.
*If you get the teat in the right place, the baby will suck.

I agree that a baby will suck reflexively if something is put into its
mouth. That is different from a baby eating when it isn't hungry, though.
I have breastfed two infants for a total of 22 months so far. In my
experience, if I put my nipple in my non-hungry newborn's mouth, the baby
will suck on it shallowly until I take it out, at which time baby may or
may not cry to have it put back in. If I put my nipple in my hungry
newborn's mouth, the baby will give a couple of short sucks, and then
start to SUCKLE deeply in a far, far different pattern. Milk will start to
ooze out the corner of baby's mouth. It's a totally, TOTALLY different
thing, eating, from just simple sucking. So, offering the breast does not
necessarily teach the baby that food is the answer. If the baby doesn't
want food, the baby won't take food.


--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)

[Ducky Lawyer]

Hillary Israeli wrote:
> I agree that a baby will suck reflexively if something is put into its
> mouth. That is different from a baby eating when it isn't hungry, though.
> I have breastfed two infants for a total of 22 months so far.
This is my experience too, though I have breastfed two infants for a
total of 7.5 months now <grin - Hillary knows I have twins!>

In my
> experience, if I put my nipple in my non-hungry newborn's mouth, the baby
> will suck on it shallowly until I take it out, at which time baby may or
> may not cry to have it put back in. If I put my nipple in my hungry
> newborn's mouth, the baby will give a couple of short sucks, and then
> start to SUCKLE deeply in a far, far different pattern. Milk will start to
> ooze out the corner of baby's mouth. It's a totally, TOTALLY different
> thing, eating, from just simple sucking. So, offering the breast does not
> necessarily teach the baby that food is the answer. If the baby doesn't
> want food, the baby won't take food.
>
Yes, as usual, you're on the money, Hill.
:-)
barbara