Demand feeding versus fed to schedule:

[sillywoman]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/17/babies-fed-demand-better-school?cat=society&type=article

Thought provoking, no?

[KateW]

Or provoking yet another Gina Ford vs no routine debate! ;-)

[Saffron]

Babies fed on demand 'do better at school'

New study shows that babies who are fed when they are hungry achieve higher test scores ? but take toll on their mothers... new research suggests that babies who are fed on demand do better academically than those who are fed on schedule ? although their mothers are more exhausted and grumpy.

Sticking to the research findings presented, rather than debating, the next thing I'd like to know is how can mothers/carers who do not want to schedule feed be better supported in cue-feeding. In other words, what support or changes could be offerd to these families, so that children could have the benefit of demand-feeding w/o exhausting their mothers?

[sillywoman]

I know, I know - I couldn't resist it in the light of the Gina/non-Gina bust up on the other thread. Naughty.

But that aside the research results are quite interesting. Of course Pene leach & O James would be happy to give comments - this bit of research backs up the parenting ethos they've based their professional reputations on. I'd be interested to see views from those whose professional reputations are based on more structured approaches to baby-raising. This one doesn't spell good news for them.

Also - as an aside - does routine always mean scheduled feeding? Do they have to go hand-in-hand? Those who do/have done 'Gina-light' , have you also done demand feeding with it, or something similar? It doesn't have to be an all or nothing does it?

[sillywoman]

Ooh, good question Saff; and how can you (or indeed can you) do the whole clarifying sleepy/hungry/comfort cues without resorting to Gina-type structures, so avoiding sleep confusion and problems continuing longer than necessary.

I think another book needs to be written - the EDF book of babies maybe?!

[Saffron]

sillywoman Wrote:

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

>

> I think another book needs to be written - the EDF

> book of babies maybe?!

I've often thought that would be a great idea. I'd love to help put the collective wisdom of the EDF into book format.

RE schedules vs routines: I think a schedule and a routine are very differnt beasts indeed. Many people like the E.A.S.Y. routine, which doesn't have to be to any schedule at all.

[helena handbasket]

sillywoman Wrote:

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

>

> But that aside the research results are quite

> interesting. Of course Pene leach & O James would

> be happy to give comments - this bit of research

> backs up the parenting ethos they've based their

> professional reputations on. I'd be interested to

> see views from those whose professional

> reputations are based on more structured

> approaches to baby-raising. This one doesn't spell

> good news for them.

The Guardian would never print them anyway.

[Pickle]

Sillywoman, I'm a routine type Mum, Gina-lite, but feed on demand. For me a routine is more about the sleep patterns rather than the eating ones... And from what I can see (based on observations made when out and about and from what's written on the forum), there comes a point where most babies end up having a sleep at the same time of day anyway!

Certainly the realities of life with 3 aged 5 and under mean the feeding this time round is more a case of "I've got 5 minutes now to sit down, I suggest you get sucking" ;-)

[Belle]

I agree with Pickle, you can do a routiney thing but still feed on demand. With son number 2 I started out doing more demand feeding than I'd done first time around, but actually he sort of settled into a rough schedule - of course it varies but the feeds do end up being 7ish (though could be 6 or 8), 10/11, 2ish, 5.45/6ish and 11pmish. I've done formula feeding on demand too (just to dispel the idea that ff and routines necessarily go hand in hand). With my little one though I found feeding on demand could exacerbate his reflux - since I've got the feeds a bit more spaced out, with him taking more, he seems better, but obviously I'd never withold a feed from a hungry baby.

[Belle]

Have to say - it may have been edited but what a rubbish quote from Oliver James! doesn't say anything really.

[Fuschia]

Not so sure that demand feeding really is hard work... Surel it depends on your personality?

I was reading this earlier, actually... http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2010/11/breastfeeding-moms-dont-get-less-sleep.html and it's sort of relevant.

[KatsuQueen]

I've given up reading these baby/parenting articles because it's just another thing to feel guilty about. Never a good enough mother no matter what you do; I bet there's anotherarticle floating around somewhere quoting research that says how much better "schedule-fed" babies do at school, nursery, better at playing with other children etc...

When I was struggling to breast-feed TinyKatsu in the early days (milk took ages to come in, nearly 10 days), she used to cry and cry. Whether from hunger or just because she was a newborn baby, who knew? But there was an article in the BBC news at the time about how breast-fed babies cry more than formula-fed babies. Wow, did I feel like cr*p. (Sorry off topic I know.)

[Pickle]

Agree with you Fuschia - and especially this time round it makes me realise I should have cherished the early months with #1 more, as with subsequent children you don't get so much time to sit and enjoy long cuddly feeds. The time passes so quickly too.

I very much enjoy the fact that I have a 3 hour "break" in the mornings while my older two are at school, as it's the one time of day that I can sit and concentrate on Kate. She feeds on and off the whole time, which then generally means she will have a nice long sleep at lunchtime giving me time alone with #2. Afternoons are a far less relaxed affair!

[sophiechristophy]

I'm not sure how you can isolate demand feeding from all of the other many many aspects of parenting and nature that contribute to these things. Demand feeding alone is of course not what counts, but everything together in order to have a great outcome for a child.

[sillywoman]

Common sense would agree with you SophieC, but that's not what this bit of research seems to be saying. At least in regard to academic achievement (which of course is only a tiny part of what can be considered a 'great outcome' for a child). I caught the tail end of a discussion on the research on a news item - one of those involved in the research analysis was discussing what it might mean & she said that a theory that her team had discussed and found 'interesting' was that babies who are demand fed play an active role in making something happen that is pleasurable (assuming food is pleasurable to your baby) to them by crying and receiving a response. Scheduled feeders are fed at times that bear no relation to their personal wishes and so learn to be passive in making their 'world' respond to them. It's a theory I guess?

My personal philosophy is more akin to yours Pickle I think. I never thought of myself as 'scheduled', and I would say I demand fed all mine whether bottle or breast fed,but I did like a bit of structure to our day & their sleeps. Mum can do without a lot, but not her sanity!

[Fuschia]

I read something a long time ago about the infant brain and its need for nutrition ... I always assumed that feeding little and often, ESP at first, just mimicked the conditions that prevail in the womb, especially vital in the 4th trimester. There comes a point when there is a major shift in brain metabolism ... I always assumed that prior to that point, the brain has evolved to rely on a constant flow of food

I am reading a book ATM written by a Neurobiologist, which will probably have something interesting to say

I have always demand fed all mine (perhaps they were just greedy!) and our life has increasingly more structure as the no of children grew. Once you have children at school and nursery, everything has to run by the clock ... Except the baby. If the baby sleeps at a convenient time, brilliant. If the baby insists on plonking himself on your lap the whole morning to alternate 'head shoulders knees and toes' with an orgy of snacky feeds, I go with it if I can. That's just what I find easiest.

[Fuschia]

Lots of interesting stuff about the brain - http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=1228 and its need for energy, negative effects of stress, etc

[chantelle]

I find it hard to differentiate between demand and schedule. My son fed about every 3 hours, exclusively breast fed, and my daughter feeds more like every four hours on a mix of breast and formula. He would cry or fuss when he wanted it while my daughter rarely fusses, I just know about when she should be hungry. So is that scheduled? Strange research to get your head round in any case.

[Fuschia]

Would need to read the whole thing to get more of a handle on it ...

[gwod]

Completely agree with Chantelle, I have no idea how they found a large enough group of parents who could clearly say whether they had demand fed or schedule fed. Surely schedule mums feed their kids if they get hungry between feeds, and equally, surely demand fed babies fall into a bit of a routine. We're all just muddling through, but there's not enough polarisation in the muddling through philosophy to sell books, so no one is talking about it!

[Saffron]

Were they trying to sell a book? I thought these were just results from an academic group (the ISER at the U of Essex)? Does anyone have a link/copy of the original study. I would like to read it.

[Saffron]

gwod Wrote:

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

> Completely agree with Chantelle, I have no idea

> how they found a large enough group of parents

> who could clearly say whether they had demand fed

> or schedule fed. Surely schedule mums feed their

> kids if they get hungry between feeds, and

> equally, surely demand fed babies fall into a bit

> of a routine.

The research compared babies fed to a schedule at four weeks of age with those whose mothers tried but did not manage to feed to a schedule, and with those who were fed on demand. The children of mothers who had tried but failed to feed to a schedule were found to have similar higher levels of attainment in Sat tests and IQ scores as demand-fed babies.

From the point of view of this piece of research, if a mother/carer fed Baby off-schedule, then this was not considered scheduled feeding, as I understand from this excerpt. The published study itself should list the criteria for inclusion in the various study groups. It should also tell you the derivation of the studied population.

[civilservant]

gwod wrote

>Surely schedule mums feed their kids if they get hungry between feeds, and equally, surely demand fed babies fall into a bit of a routine.

The distinguishing criterion seems to be maternal intention.

A schedule mum would not feed her child between scheduled feeds, by definition.

By feeding a child who cries - from hunger? for any other reason? can you really tell with a small baby? - between scheduled feeds, a schedule mum stops being that and becomes instead 'a mother who tried but did not manage to feed to a schedule'.

And it's perfectly normal for a demand-fed baby to fall into a routine. Is the mother baby-led in determining when the baby eats? Then she would be feeding on demand even if these feeds were so spaced as to give the impression of a schedule.

ETA Not at all helpful that the research is being cast as a 'baby's future attainment v. mum's current well-being' type battle

[Fuschia]

Here it is

http://m.eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/eurpub.cks012

[RhubarbGarden]

"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.