Solids, formula and sleep

[Mmm Dessert]

Just out of curiosity, I was wondering what everyone's experiences have been with the early introduction of solids, and switching babies from breastmilk to formula.

I have had so many people telling me lately that I should switch my almost four month old DD onto solids and formula to help her 'settle' and sleep through the night more consistently. Some nights she sleeps through, other nights she has one feed.

While I have no intention of doing either, I was wondering what everyone else has experienced.

If you started your baby on solids earlier than six months, would you say it created any definite change in behaviour?

If you switched from exclusive bf to ff or a combination of the two, did you notice a difference?

Just to let you know, my DD is exclusively breastfed and so far I plan to do this for as long as we're both happy. My DS was bottlefed from three months and started on solids at six months. I saw no real change in him when either the formula or solids were introduced. Both my DP and mother swear that he slept much better when he started on formula, however I think it's more to do with what he was ready for than anything diet-related.

What have your experiences been?

[pixiemum2]

DS was topped up with formula pretty much from day one due to low supply. From memory I think we started him on solids at 4.5 months. It didn't really affect his night sleeping. He still woke during the night. He slept through at about 8-9 months.

DD has been exclusively breastfed (nearly 8 months old). At 4 months she was waking 2-3 times per night for a feed. At about 6 months she went down to one feed and recently she has been sleeping right through without a feed. She will not take solids and we haven't given formula.

Personally I wouldn't introduce formula or solids just to try and get my child to sleep through. It's different for every child.

[delirium]

With DD, she had the tongue reflex until almost 8 months, so she was a late starter. There are no issues with her development.

With D'S, he had severe reflux, where meds did very little. Under suggestion from a paed I started DS on solids at 4.5 months (he wanted me to introduce at 3 months :eek:, but I thought that was ridiculous). His symptoms almost disappeared from the first feed, and he is also a healthy, hungry 1 y.o.

The only difference I would say between the 2 is that DS I would describe as a more confident eater than DD at this age. I think you are doing a great job, I know of ladies on other forums that exclusively bf until 8 or 9 months and their bubs are healthy chubbas. Follow your instincts, I find mine are rarely wrong ;)

[workin'mumof2]

lol solids did not help my boy nor did formular. infact at 22.5months old he still does not sleep through. some nights my fully breastfed daughter sleeps better:laughing: so in my case it did not help. we started solids on him at 4months. with dd i will be waiting

[Pinky81]

Definately tell everyone to mind there own business and keep BF your child without solids for as long as you see fit :yelclap:
Due to my DD loosing weight on the breast I had no choice but to switch her to Formula at 6 weeks.
I would say she was slightly more settled, as she was starving from my lack of supply beforehand. BUT she still fed on demend every 2 hours (just smaller amounts) for months and months and has always woken throughout the night and still does at 16 months!!
Even starting solids at 6 months did not help DD to be more settled especially at night! I think it upset her tummy more and she woke more often.
My point, I guess is different babies=different temprements (sp?) regardless of what you feed them. IMO

[Angroc]

W&E - Even though DD is only just 4 months she is more than ready for solids and has taken to them like a fish to water. It hasnt helped with her sleeping through at night and they werent introduced for that reason. She is a hungry bub! Unfortunately she refuses to take formula and is also FT BF. I have had a few ppl critisizing me for starting her 'so early' but I wasnt going to let her cry from being hungry just because the experts say you should or shouldnt do something. I agree with Delirium, trust your mothers instinct. You will do what is right for your children regardless of what the 'experts' say.

[Phyllis Stein]

Part of the reason they can make babies more "settled" is because they are too complex for a babies gut to break down quickly (unlike bm). So they sit in the gut for much longer, giving bubs a 'full' feeling, but no corresponding extra nutrition, are incompletely digested, potentially setting up allergies or intolerances down the track, and releasing toxins as they decay. I'd take a normal 'unsettled' baby over a baby with a damaged gut anyday.

I'm also glad there are experts out there to override my mummy's instinct every now and then. Mummies aren't omniscient, and I can't always know every single thing going on inside my babies mind and body.

[Cordelia]

I haven't heard one success story about introducing solids/formula to young babies to help them settle.

[Angroc]

Part of the reason they can make babies more "settled" is because they are too complex for a babies gut to break down quickly (unlike bm). So they sit in the gut for much longer, giving bubs a 'full' feeling, but no corresponding extra nutrition, are incompletely digested, potentially setting up allergies or intolerances down the track, and releasing toxins as they decay. I'd take a normal 'unsettled' baby over a baby with a damaged gut anyday.

I'm also glad there are experts out there to override my mummy's instinct every now and then. Mummies aren't omniscient, and I can't always know every single thing going on inside my babies mind and body.

If at any point dd was not being regular with her poos ar looked to be in any discomfort then obviously I would stop in a heart beat. What is right for one bub may not necessarily be right for another. In my case my daughter has adjusted really well to eating solids and I will continue to monitor her very closely. As I said in my post, they werent introduced to help her settle.

[cmd'smum]

Part of the reason they can make babies more "settled" is because they are too complex for a babies gut to break down quickly (unlike bm). So they sit in the gut for much longer, giving bubs a 'full' feeling, but no corresponding extra nutrition, are incompletely digested, potentially setting up allergies or intolerances down the track, and releasing toxins as they decay. I'd take a normal 'unsettled' baby over a baby with a damaged gut anyday.

I'm also glad there are experts out there to override my mummy's instinct every now and then. Mummies aren't omniscient, and I can't always know every single thing going on inside my babies mind and body.


:iagree:

My DD is 13 months and still BF and she STILL wakes at least twice a night for a feed. I've learned that she is just a light sleeper an the smallest thing can wake her, unlike her older sister who was BF too. She started proper solids at around 7 months and this did'nt help her become more settled either.

If you and your DD are happy bf, then ignore remarks to stop!:yes:

[Uzbard]

Addressing the comment regarding formula and babies microflora.....The microflora of the human gut does not originate from breast milk itself. Rather it is gathered during the first few months of a newborns life from exposure to the environment. The first environment is that of birth In fact, much of a childs microflora is derived at birth, when the neonate leaves the protective envrionment of the womb and enters the world. Once exposed to the natural envrionmental bacterial load of the mother, the microorganisms quickly establish a presence in the intestinal tract of the neonate.

Rectal swabs taken at birth yield very few organisms. However, rapid colonisation is noted in subsequent specimens and swabs taken of the mother match that of the neonate. So, babies are born with a minimal presence of microflora in their gut but within a few hours of live, bacterial groups such as coliforms and enterobacter species are taken in and colonise. The baby will be exposed to natural bacteria during breastfeeding, and indeed bacteria in the milk will be passed on. However, bacterial load from the breast itself is also taken into the baby and form apart of the natural flora of the gut. The same bacterial species are also found on bottle teats, cloths, fingers (mother, father and the babies own), toys, carpet, etc. These are the normal bacteria that are always present in our day to day lives.

"Bottle feeding damages the natural gut microflora" "Formula contains toxins" or "Breaks down to toxins":

To damage implies some form of poison or toxin. In order to "damage" the microflora of the intestinal tract, something must enter the digestive system that KILLS bacteria. Alcohol, antibiotics, etc are toxins that are effective in producing this effect. Infant formula does not contain these compounds. Infant formula will not damage the microflora of a child. Feeding them excessive amounts of specific foods may have an unbalancing effect - for example large volumes of soft drink. But to damage, one needs a toxic or pathogenic agent. Infant formula is designed for infants and is also one of the most regulated foodstuffs in the Australian market, such to a similar degree as that of pharmacuticals. Formula does not break down to toxins either.

[Miaow]

Early introduction of solids (4mths) didnt do a thing to EJs sleep patterns. She was always a bad sleeper, waking heaps, until a few months ago (say about 2.5yo). Now she's really good at night - I do think though the lack of day naps (she hasn't really had them for a few months) is one part of why she's sleeping better at night.

[J&C0508]

Im sort of divided on this one, ds1 started solids at 5 months because he was unsettled and 'hungry' and it did seemed to settle him down, although this was NOT my intention and reason for starting solids. I look back now after having my ds2 and realise that i had supply issues, as i am going through a similar thing now, and he was just plain hungry and not getting enough from me so the intro of solids at 5 months did help he was much more settled and slept more
DS2 was very unsetled from around 31/2 months and i again thought i had supply issues, the child nurse suggested maybe start solids but i was not prepared to that age. So i persevered through to 51/2 months and started him and he hasnt looked back he is puting pn weight, as he was not before, and he is much more settled at night, although i never really had issues with night sleeping both boys slept great from the start.
I almost gave up on BFing ds2 a couple of months ago cause i just didnt have enough for him but now i am able to continue bfing cause he is getting more from his solids he is still only on 2 solid feeds aday, he does get the odd bottle on days where my supply is low.
So to sum up my novel the introduction to soilds did infact help with the settling of both my bubs, although as i said this was NOT the reason for me introducing, it was that they were not getting enough from me.
Its funny you learn so much more with your second bub and you realise now what was going on with bub no 1 and why things werent working.
You will know if bub is ready or not, as everyone says each and every baby is different.

[jayisa02]

i havent read all the other responses but just wanted to let you know my experience. My DS was bottlefed and i introduced solids at 3.5mths due to him being so unsettled. To be honest i think it did him more harm than good and his crying was worse.

With my DD i did everything the opposite. She is still breastfed at 13mths old and i introduced solids at 6mths but she wasnt interested. I reintroduced solids at around 7.5mths and she is a great sleeper and a very settled baby.

I think breastfeeding is more than how you feed a baby - it is a wonderful bond between mum and bub. If you are happy to continue breastfeeding then i would encourage you to. I dont think there is any benefit in introducing solids early for most babies. In the end its up to you of course :)

[Freya]

Part of the reason they can make babies more "settled" is because they are too complex for a babies gut to break down quickly (unlike bm). So they sit in the gut for much longer, giving bubs a 'full' feeling, but no corresponding extra nutrition, are incompletely digested, potentially setting up allergies or intolerances down the track, and releasing toxins as they decay. I'd take a normal 'unsettled' baby over a baby with a damaged gut anyday.

I'm also glad there are experts out there to override my mummy's instinct every now and then. Mummies aren't omniscient, and I can't always know every single thing going on inside my babies mind and body.

:iagree:

[cja]

I think it depends on the baby.....

With DS we started solids at 4.5months and he took to it straight away. It had no impact on sleeping because he slept thru the night from 9pm-5am from about 6weeks.

With DD I would have been happy to start her on solids at a similar age but she wasn't ready so we waited and tried again at 6mths. I think the introduction of solids at 6mths may have helped DD sleep thru the night for the first time (YAY!) or perhaps it is a coincidence....

[Phyllis Stein]

Addressing the comment regarding formula and babies microflora.....The microflora of the human gut does not originate from breast milk itself. Rather it is gathered during the first few months of a newborns life from exposure to the environment. The first environment is that of birth In fact, much of a childs microflora is derived at birth, when the neonate leaves the protective envrionment of the womb and enters the world. Once exposed to the natural envrionmental bacterial load of the mother, the microorganisms quickly establish a presence in the intestinal tract of the neonate.

Rectal swabs taken at birth yield very few organisms. However, rapid colonisation is noted in subsequent specimens and swabs taken of the mother match that of the neonate. So, babies are born with a minimal presence of microflora in their gut but within a few hours of live, bacterial groups such as coliforms and enterobacter species are taken in and colonise. The baby will be exposed to natural bacteria during breastfeeding, and indeed bacteria in the milk will be passed on. However, bacterial load from the breast itself is also taken into the baby and form apart of the natural flora of the gut. The same bacterial species are also found on bottle teats, cloths, fingers (mother, father and the babies own), toys, carpet, etc. These are the normal bacteria that are always present in our day to day lives.

"Bottle feeding damages the natural gut microflora" "Formula contains toxins" or "Breaks down to toxins":

To damage implies some form of poison or toxin. In order to "damage" the microflora of the intestinal tract, something must enter the digestive system that KILLS bacteria. Alcohol, antibiotics, etc are toxins that are effective in producing this effect. Infant formula does not contain these compounds. Infant formula will not damage the microflora of a child. Feeding them excessive amounts of specific foods may have an unbalancing effect - for example large volumes of soft drink. But to damage, one needs a toxic or pathogenic agent. Infant formula is designed for infants and is also one of the most regulated foodstuffs in the Australian market, such to a similar degree as that of pharmacuticals. Formula does not break down to toxins either.

I read damage as an 'occurrence of a change for the worse', it matters not what the causative agent is - it need not be a toxin.

Also, from what I've read, method of feeding is second only to method of birth in influencing microflora balance. I have some links, but might start a new thread so as not to derail this one.

[forbetoel]

It depends really. I had very settle happy babies who were breast fed. My sister had supply issues from the beginning, and found the switch to formula a life saver for her. The change in her babies (all 3 of them) was quite amazing actually. They went from being fairly skinny, whingy, not sleeping, to plump, alert, and sleeping well once they were on formula. She stuck with breast feeding for about 5 months with all of them, so that was great, but the switch worked for her.

Now I am of the opinion that breast milk is the most marvelous thing that we can ever give our babies, but for some women, (luckily not me) their babies do a lot better once on formula for lot's of different reasons.

[naiwen]

Addressing the comment regarding formula and babies microflora.....The microflora of the human gut does not originate from breast milk itself. Rather it is gathered during the first few months of a newborns life from exposure to the environment. The first environment is that of birth In fact, much of a childs microflora is derived at birth, when the neonate leaves the protective envrionment of the womb and enters the world. Once exposed to the natural envrionmental bacterial load of the mother, the microorganisms quickly establish a presence in the intestinal tract of the neonate.

Rectal swabs taken at birth yield very few organisms. However, rapid colonisation is noted in subsequent specimens and swabs taken of the mother match that of the neonate. So, babies are born with a minimal presence of microflora in their gut but within a few hours of live, bacterial groups such as coliforms and enterobacter species are taken in and colonise. The baby will be exposed to natural bacteria during breastfeeding, and indeed bacteria in the milk will be passed on. However, bacterial load from the breast itself is also taken into the baby and form apart of the natural flora of the gut. The same bacterial species are also found on bottle teats, cloths, fingers (mother, father and the babies own), toys, carpet, etc. These are the normal bacteria that are always present in our day to day lives.

"Bottle feeding damages the natural gut microflora" "Formula contains toxins" or "Breaks down to toxins":

To damage implies some form of poison or toxin. In order to "damage" the microflora of the intestinal tract, something must enter the digestive system that KILLS bacteria. Alcohol, antibiotics, etc are toxins that are effective in producing this effect. Infant formula does not contain these compounds. Infant formula will not damage the microflora of a child. Feeding them excessive amounts of specific foods may have an unbalancing effect - for example large volumes of soft drink. But to damage, one needs a toxic or pathogenic agent. Infant formula is designed for infants and is also one of the most regulated foodstuffs in the Australian market, such to a similar degree as that of pharmacuticals. Formula does not break down to toxins either.

Thanks for that :yelclap:, cleared up a lot of misconceptions, alchohol is a toxin, formula is not! :yes: