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

    • Whilst I agree, I have been thinking about this recently in relation to some of the other posts on here about anti social behaviour. We are all products of our upbringing - our experiences at home, school and beyond - plus whatever we have inherited genetically which might affect our behaviour (the nature/nurture thing). So in this case, if people haven't been brought up to love and appreciate trees and other wild things, plus as you say they may be deeply unhappy (or have other undiagnosed issues) it's easy to see how they could have ended up doing this. Also, it's possible they had quite low intelligence and didn't really grasp what they were doing and the effect it would have on so many other people. But that's just surmise and possibly completely wrong. From what I've read about it, they seemed to be two mates egging each other on, like two big kids. I'm not for a minute excusing what they did, and it's right they should be punished, but I really hope they might get some sort of rehabilitation in prison (it would  be appropriate to have them do some kind of community service like planting saplings, wouldn't it, or working in woodland conservation). And the same goes for phone robbers and shoplifters (rehabilitation, not planting saplings), though for SOME  shoplifters there might also be other issues at play, not excluding poverty. Sorry Jasonlondon,  I've gone off at a real tangent here, lucky it's in the lounge! Oh oops I've just noticed it isn't. Sorry admin. Oh, and then there's a whole philosophical discussion to be had about free will and determinism ..... 🤣🤣🤣
    • Thanks! I'll find out in a few weeks when I get the results! It was one of those disconcerting things where a disembodied voice keeps booming  at you to breathe in and hold it, then breathe normally. Apart from that it was OK, all completely painless. I imagine there will be quite a few people going from ED, though I presume it covers the whole Southwark area 
    • Two men behind ‘senseless’ felling of Sycamore Gap tree jailed for more than four years Good to see these two jailed today for four years. There’s something deeply disturbing about people who destroy trees—any tree. Whether it’s a centuries-old landmark or a sapling in a quiet park, trees are living beings that offer beauty, shade, and life. The men who cut down the Sycamore Gap tree are a stark example of how far some people will go to lash out at something peaceful and meaningful. People who harm nature like this aren’t just destructive—they are often deeply unhappy. It takes a troubled mind to look at a tree and see something to ruin instead of something to protect. Read more here  
    • What a brilliant idea. I hope it went OK, Sue. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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