"Thriving" breastfed babies

[Lineymom]

I am a mom to 3. I breastfed my older ones for over 2 years and am currently bfeding my 12 week old. All my babies are very big/chubby. They start with big birthweights (the boys were 10 and 11 lbers.) my little girl was 9#10 and is already nearing 17lbs. I was talking to another mom of bigger babies who also bf. We were talking about how big our babies were and bfing etc. She said that an older lady at the church had been surprised that she was bf because her baby was so big and "bf babies these days don't seem to thrive."

I kinda know what the lady was talking about because I have seen some really skinny babies at that church who are breastfed for a short amount of time and then put on formula and get fat. Of course, I hate the negative spin it puts on bfing. I have heard 2 different views of bfing: that bfing babies are leaner and that bfing babies gain a lot at first and then slow down in the 2nd half of the first year. The last being what my kids have done.

My nephew that is exclusively breastfed at 3.5 months is very skinny. He was 8.5lbs at birth and is still not 13 lbs, but long.

So are there just genetic variables, or are these moms not feeding enough or am I feeding too much (I don't think that personally and would never deny a hungry baby!) I hear all this stuff about I must have richer milk la la la...

I tend to think these moms aren't feeding enough or have compromised there supply, but I don't want to be biased like that if I am wrong. I would like to hear others opinions. Do any of you crunchy ecological bf types (lol!!) have skinny babies?

[phrogger]

I had 2 skinny babies and 1 fat baby, all breast feed. The two skinny ones had one father and my fat one has a different father. I didn't do anything different as far as nursing or even feeding solids. My fat baby (who started off VERY VERY skinny and we called him skin flaps actually because he had so much extra skin just from being thin) and my second son started eating solids right around the same time. Activity level is about the same in all of them. The only difference at all was my second son started sleeping through the night early on, but my oldest and the baby didn't. My oldest sttn at 11 months and the baby is only 7 months and no where near it.

So really, the only difference I can figure out is genetics. My ex husband comes from a family of very thin people. My oldest son now is 5'7 at 13 and 125. He is thin and muscular.

My baby is just a chunk. 19 lbs at 7 months where as his older brothers were over a year old before they were over 19 lbs.

They also were all exactly the same length at birth and within 6 oz of each other at birth. So it isn't like the baby started off bigger.

[Ruthla]

I had one skinny, short baby, one fat, short baby, and one overall big baby. The skinny, short baby is now a short, slender 15yo, the short fat baby is now a short, curvy, 13yo (woman's size 6 but only 4'9" tall) and the overall big baby is now a tall, slender, fairly muscular 8yo boy.

DD2 and DS were very fat in their first 6 months of life, slimming down once they got active. All 3 of them grew according to their own growth curves, not being too fat or too thin (at least not until puberty for my girls, when other factors affected appetite and weight gain.) DD2 was 9 lbs at birth and only about 18 lbs at a year.

When I hear about individual babies being very skinny, then gaining weight when switched to formula, my first guess is that the moms were breastfeeding "on schedule" and unwittingly underfeeding their babies, and then they started feeding appropriate amounts with the formula. Of course, there are many other possibilities, such as the babies being properly fed at first then overfed with formula, or an actual problem with insufficient milk supply in spite of the mom doing everything "right." In those cases, I wish the moms had the support to continue breastfeeding even if they need to supplement with formula- although the reality is that few moms have that kind of support. That could easily be the case for any individual woman- but when a whole bunch of moms in the same geographical area are having similar issues, it's more likely due to breastfeeding mismanagement/women looking for excuses to wean.

[Red Pajama]

My kids were chubby as infants, but slimmed down as they grew. My boys were born at 7.4, and nursed. Neither was ever a fat baby, but chubby, with round faces and pudgy hands. Once they started really moving, they slimmed down. THey nursed a little over two years. They turn 5 in a week, and are both just under 35 lbs.

My youngest was a well fed infant, but she refused all solids until almost a year. She was born at almost 9 lbs (I'm gestationally diabetic) and was chubby but not huge. She was hard to keep in clothes until about 6 months, and then slowed down her growth. She still nurses lots, but eats decently. She is maybe 24 lbs, so fairly skinny as two year olds go.

So to answer your question, none of mine have been skinny babies, but they're all playing that part, now.

I think genetics plays a huge roll. I'm sure there's factors that are related to milk supply or scheduled feedings in some individuals, but I think the greatest factor is the genetics of the baby.

[Lil'Momma]

I think genetics can play a big deal in it. I am 5'10" and weigh 107. I hypermetabolize everything I eat... it just blows through me... had a million test run and docs can't find anything wrong with me. I eat ~3000 calories a day.

DD has a hard time with weight. We have to weigh her at ped's office once a week and she doesn't always gain, yet she is "thriving" when it comes to developmental milestones. Crawling, saying a couple words, pulling up, self feeding all at 9 months, so well within "normal". She eats (per before and after feeds for weeks on end) 30-35 oz breastmilk, four "solid meals" that are high fat (avocado, banana, ect) and 2-3 oz juice just because she loves it and it has some calories in it. in a 24 period. She weighs 12 lbs. We've had the calorie content of my BM checked and it is ~21-22 calories per oz (I eat a lot of high fat snacks (avocado, banana, lots of nuts) so in theory, she's eating a ton of calories, she just doesn't gain weight. The doc's can't find anything "wrong" with her per se, they just shrug and blame genetics...

I think there are some babies out there who just may not get enough, but I don't think that everyone is that way and I have had my share of "if you just feed her formula she would fatten up" which gives everyone a bad impression on breastfeeding...

[crunchy_mommy]

My nephew (6mos) is tall & skinny, was EBF til 4-5 mos when they started solids. They did use a paci & bottles though. My DS (1 yr) is short & chubby -- but not overly so, I don't follow the charts but I'd guess 60% for weight & 5% for height. No paci, no bottles, nearly EBF 'til 7 months (few tastes of solids before then) and limited solids now. Part of me thinks my DS is chubbier than his cousin because of how we BF. But if you look at DN's father, he is tall & skinny. I think he's picked up those genetics, whereas my & DH's families tend more toward short & chubby. However I do think there are extremes of formula feeding (I've seen a lot of over-fed formula babies who are VERY VERY chubby) and then there are the BF babies who are fed on schedules, not ecologically BF, etc. and they do seem skinnier... I think that's where the stereotypes have come into play. I think an ecologically-fed BF baby and a formula-fed-on-demand baby would be equally likely to appear "thriving"...

P.S. Both DS & DN were similar weights at birth, in the low 7lbs.

[Sk8ermaiden]

I do hate the way you've put, "done something to compromise their supply." Yes, far too many moms do do things that hurt their supply, but there are moms out there with true low supply, and as one of them, generalizations like that really cut to the quick.

I agree with the poster that wishes moms with low supply realized that they could keep breastfeeding! We were about 13 weeks out when I really realized that nothing I could do was going to get me to make more than ~20 oz. a day. People started asking me if we were going to stop BFing then. Why???? I would much rather my baby get 20 oz. a day of my milk than none!!! She does get 8 oz. a day of supplement, but that seems like small cookies compared to getting majority BM.

Despite being nursed on demand, and given formula when that is just not enough, my baby is a tiny thing. Totally healthy and lightyears ahead on her milestones - just tiny. I have heard that the hindmilk thing isn't true, but I am really interested in it. I don't get a lot of hindmilk. Times when she gets more formula (like when I was at my friend's birth for two days (pumping)), you can definitely tell she's starting to chunk up.

But on a sadder note, my DH has a coworker who BFs, but started giving her baby a bottle of BM mixed with rice cereal at night so she would STTN - at a really young age - 4 weeks or so. Well the baby does STTN, but I think as a direct result of missing all that night nutrition, is now failure to thrive. Makes me crazy. And of course, the problem is her milk. Not the crap in baby's stomach taking up space but giving her no nutrients.

AT my LLL, those ladies are definitely not comprimising their supplies or feeding on schedule, and there is one giant, OMG, is that really OK? baby, one chubby one, and the rest skinny.

[bandgeek]

I only had a fat one, but I've known people who had thin, exclusively breastfed babies and while they didn't have rolls, they were thriving just fine. There's a difference between "thin" and "failure to thrive". When a baby really isn't getting enough, it's a medical problem. If the parents put them on formula just so they can "fatten them up" it's not a medical problem, although someone with little knowledge on infant feeding and growth might perceive it as one.

There's one little girl in particular I'm thinking of. Her mom was the LLL leader when my son was a baby. Our kids were 2 weeks apart. At 7 months, DS was 25 lbs and her little girl was 13 lbs. DS refused to eat food, her little girl was stealing food from her brother's plate. They are 5 now and about the same size. Tall and thin. Both thrived and grew at their own pace.

[sunflwrmoonbeam]

I agree that genetics is a big deal. I went to 42+3 with DD and she came out at 9.12 and way outmassed all the other babies in the (very very brief stay) nursery. However, from about 2 weeks her weight gain slowed down and she's been steadily putting on 1 pound every month, without fail. I have no supply issues, nurse her tons, and she's ahead of most developmental milestones. In 6 months she went from 98% to 50-60%. I'm not worried about it, and figure she'll be what size she is.

[phrogger]

Oh and I wanted to add, my two oldest ones who were skinny were on track or advanced developmentally. My oldest, and thinnest of them all, was talking in full sentences by 9 months olds. He wasn't a failure to thrive baby, he was just thin. We joked it was his name, Vinny, it just rhymed too well with skinny.

[Lineymom]

Originally Posted by Sk8ermaiden

I do hate the way you've put, "done something to compromise their supply." Yes, far too many moms do do things that hurt their supply, but there are moms out there with true low supply, and as one of them, generalizations like that really cut to the quick.

I agree with the poster that wishes moms with low supply realized that they could keep breastfeeding! We were about 13 weeks out when I really realized that nothing I could do was going to get me to make more than ~20 oz. a day. People started asking me if we were going to stop BFing then. Why???? I would much rather my baby get 20 oz. a day of my milk than none!!! She does get 8 oz. a day of supplement, but that seems like small cookies compared to getting majority BM.

Despite being nursed on demand, and given formula when that is just not enough, my baby is a tiny thing. Totally healthy and lightyears ahead on her milestones - just tiny. I have heard that the hindmilk thing isn't true, but I am really interested in it. I don't get a lot of hindmilk. Times when she gets more formula (like when I was at my friend's birth for two days (pumping)), you can definitely tell she's starting to chunk up.

But on a sadder note, my DH has a coworker who BFs, but started giving her baby a bottle of BM mixed with rice cereal at night so she would STTN - at a really young age - 4 weeks or so. Well the baby does STTN, but I think as a direct result of missing all that night nutrition, is now failure to thrive. Makes me crazy. And of course, the problem is her milk. Not the crap in baby's stomach taking up space but giving her no nutrients.

AT my LLL, those ladies are definitely not comprimising their supplies or feeding on schedule, and there is one giant, OMG, is that really OK? baby, one chubby one, and the rest skinny.

Sorry, I didn't mean any offense. Its just everyone I know does things like let the dh give bottles at night so she can sleep before a wk old, brag about the baby sleeping through the night at that age etc. Then... soon after..."I just didn't have enough milk." The truth is they really didn't want to bf to begin with but just "tried." If they would only just pick up and read any about bfing they would know better.

I know there can be different circumstances, but that is what I mean by doing things to compromise there supply.

[Xavismom]

DS is BF, and is currently very chunky (14 Ibs 8 oz @ 2 month check up)

But I was BF too as a baby, and my mom said I was very very chunky until I started walking at 9 months, and then I thined out. The same with her as well, very chunky at first, then thin.

I have gotten some odd remarks on DS though. I dont think BFing is really big here, and people usually think DS is older than he is, or if they realize he is BF, they say, WOW he is that big on *only* BM? Like its very shocking or something.

[4Blessings]

All four of my babies have been big chunky ebf babies. My sister insisted on a very set feeding (and sleeping) schedule with her babies. Her supply suffered and her babies were very skinny. She turned to supplementing very early.

She also refused any suggestion to feed on demand or even feed the babies more often insisting that her schedule needed to be followed.

I also get comments from people who are surprised that my babies are so big being ebf.

[_betsy_]

DD1 is tall and lean. DD2 is shorter and a chunk. Both EBF for about 7 months, and nursed well past a year (OK, DD2 is only 13 months, but she's not slowing down any!).

Same parenting, same environment, same parents, just different body types.

[Lineymom]

I have gotten those remarks with all of mine especially my oldest who refused solids until 13 months when he was 29lbs and had only breastmilk!

[artgoddess]

Mine both chunked right up on breast milk. DD was born at 8.8 and at her 3 day appointment she was 8.10 and just kept on gaining. at one month she was 12# even. I've also known a few petite little babies who were EBF. I think what it all comes down to is people need to categorize. they need to say to themselves, "If a person does X then Y will happen." thing is, babies are not kitchen appliances, they all have varying outcomes regardless of which set of operating instructions you follow.

[fruitfulmomma]

Do any of you crunchy ecological bf types (lol!!) have skinny babies?

My oldest two were both really skinny and still are. The next one was a big chunk but she has slimmed down. We get lots of comments that her and the older girl look like twins despite being 2 1/2 years apart. The next two were just kind of "average", not really chunky or thin. They have all been exclusively bf'ed on demand and for a minimum of 2 years (except the baby who is 14mo but she isn't stopping any time soon.)

[bandgeek]

Originally Posted by artgoddess

I think what it all comes down to is people need to categorize. they need to say to themselves, "If a person does X then Y will happen." thing is, babies are not kitchen appliances, they all have varying outcomes regardless of which set of operating instructions you follow.

*Excellent* way of putting it!

[MamaChicken]

I had DD a month after a good friend - we both EBF and started pumping when we returned to work. For the whole first year or more, her DD was thinner than DD and quite a bit lighter, too. One day we compare our expressed milk, mine had 1/2" or more of fat on the top, her looked like skim milk (complete with the blue-ish tinge).

Both girls were healthy and thrived quite well.

Kids are different, but so is each mama's milk.

[Parker'smommy]

Both of my kids started out big...ds was 10 pounds and dd was 9.4 lbs. And really, they were CHUNKA MUNKS right out of the hatch...rolls and rolls. They stayed pretty chunky for the first 6 months. Ds was ebf for 6 months, dd for 8 1/2 months. Then they started slimming out, and gained less in the second half of the first year. Both were around 24/26 pounds at a year. I nursed ds till he was almost 3 years, and dd till her 4th bday. Ds is slim now at 8 years old and dd is also just lost her baby buddah belly and is now slender. Yes, genetics may have a key, but I like to think good ole breastmilk contributed to their great health years later.