Babys routine

short

Hi, my little one is now 3 weeks, is feeding every 3 hours, and sometimes wakes for it after 2.5 hrs, as had jaundice after birth but this gone now and am now trying to push feeds out . Any advice on how to do this?or is it too soon to start pushing out feeds?

Thanks

xzanti

Is your little one on the bottle or breast?

If it's the bottle then you could try using the 'Hungrier Baby' stuff.. my Son was like that and we had to switch and it kept him fuller for longer.

The PHN advised us to try and stagger the feeds to every 4 hours, and that was when he was just a week old

How Strange

If your little one is breastfed then fed on cue especially because of jaundice as frequent feeding will help flush it out.

Regardless of how she's fed make sure she's getting lots of direct sunlight (mornings and evenings at this time of year considering how strong the sun is) as it really helps with jaundice.

Moonbeam

That sounds normal for a breast fed baby .

missis aggie

I personally believe that regardless of feeding method, baby always should be fed on demand. Especialy that young. I always did it and never stressed about timing when baby has to eat

short

Hi all, thanks for replies, baby is being bottle fed Aptimal, public health nurse said that now jaundice gone was ok to start pushing feeds out a bit but little one is still on cue every 3 hours and have tried to leave it as long as possible but she starts to cry so always feed her . I was just wondering if there were any tips to try and get her to even 3 and a half hours. If not when can I expect her to start sleeping longer between feeds ? Thanks again

LegacyUser

exactly why are you not feeding your baby when they're hungry? is this for your benefit? why have a child is this is how you are going to look after them?

edellc

each child is an individual and gets to their milestones in their own time. at 3wks you feed the child on demand thats just how it goes, you still have a newborn, i dont think the Hungrier Baby' stuff will work as at 3wks they are still getting used to what you are feeding them and it is not recommended to chop and change their milk due to their digestive system

Op stay calm and enjoy now, dont be rushing to push this and that your child will let you know when they are ready, its all part of the process so just relax and take each hour of each day as it comes

xzanti

I love the way some people unreg when they're taking a swipe at others :rolleyes:

If you have something to add, have the courage of your convictions and say it under your real username.

dublinlady

xzanti wrote: »

I love the way some people unreg when they're taking a swipe at others :rolleyes:

If you have something to add, have the courage of your convictions and say it under your real username.

Totally agree - what a stupid unnecessary comment.

Op - their tummies so small at that age they can't feed enough to last them longer really - but time will soon pass - saying that my 15 week old sometimes still only does 3 hrs - but sometimes 4 now on formula. She used to be breastfed - was every 2 hrs then and each feed took an hr - so 3 hrs seems great!!

red fraggle

well my 20 week old breastfed baby is stil going 2- 2.5 hours :eek: only latley has she started to go 3 hours so im now pushing for 3 hours a bit as i know she can. i wouldnt know what to do if she went 4 hours!!! as for the sleep well my little one is a madam and never really napped for me at all. only does 20mins or so in my arms once or twice a day if im lucky.

but you do get used to it so dont stress or worry your little one is doing great goin 3 hours between feeds. enjoy!:D

caprilicious

Op my son is 5 weeks old & still feeding every 3 hours, that's even on the SMA hungry baby formula. He just has a massive little appetite on him!

My daughter was 8 weeks old before she stretched enough on her feeds enough to sleep through the night.

Hopefully it wont be too much longer until your little one stretches their feeds.

pwurple

Hi OP,

Ignore that nasty person, we are all learning when it comes to our babies, no matter how much experience we have. They are all individuals. 3 hours at that age is perfectly normal. Their tummies are very small at that age. I wouldn't change the formula unless there is something wrong, it can upset them. Ours started to get blisters on her mouth, so we switched to sma from aptimil.

The babies tummy will get bigger as they grow, the feeds will increase and they will stretch it out themselves.

Feed them when they cry. Sometimes even when they stretch it out, they go on a growth spurt and take it more often again.

short

Hi, thanks again to all for the helpful and informative comments really good to know how others are going. To our Guest's comments I dont see the point of your unhelpful comments, people are on here to ask questins, help each other and hopefully learn from each other not to take swipes.

Hannibal Smith

I understand you wanting to stretch it out. My first was every 4 hours and the second was every 3 hours...my goodness the tiredness! I even posted on here a few times at 5am looking for help lol The difference that hour makes is incredible.

As the amount of feeds increase in ounces...they'll start to stretch out themselves...or at least become less 'feed me NOW!' about it. I think my fella was about 12 weeks or so before it started going further. Though I have to say, he still sometimes goes every 3 hours during the day. But at night he sleeps through which is the main thing.

I know people will try and tell you to try and lead the way....but there's not really much you can do about it, from my experience anyway. you'll only end up walking rye floor boards trying to keep baby calm, when you could be sitting down giving them a feed

Minxie123

I'm sorry but I have to agree with the 'guest'. I don't understand why you wouldn't feed a baby who was hungry? I'm honestly not trying to be mean but I really just don't understand this. Believe me, I know how tiring it all is but just if the baby is hungry you feed them regardless of whether it's breast or bottle. They will work out their own feeding routine as they go but your job, as hard as it is at the moment, is to give your baby everything they need. They don't understand hours, they just know they're hungry.

Hannibal Smith

Minxie123 wrote: »

I'm sorry but I have to agree with the 'guest'. I don't understand why you wouldn't feed a baby who was hungry? I'm honestly not trying to be mean but I really just don't understand this. Believe me, I know how tiring it all is but just if the baby is hungry you feed them regardless of whether it's breast or bottle. They will work out their own feeding routine as they go but your job, as hard as it is at the moment, is to give your baby everything they need. They don't understand hours, they just know they're hungry.

She's not talking about starving baby, she's talking about stretching out the feeds. Big difference. With a new baby you have plenty of people giving their two cents about what baby 'should' be doing. So coming on here asking about what she's been told the op is doing nothing wrong. She gas a new baby and is dealing with the demands of that....she really doesn't need the judgmental crap with it.

3 hourly feeds are exhausting...you're only finished one feed when you're starting another, so looking for a bit of a break isn't childline stuff.

nicowa

Palacko wrote: »

exactly why are you not feeding your baby when they're hungry? is this for your benefit? why have a child is this is how you are going to look after them?

Don't do that. While I'm agreeing with those that say feed the baby, I also agree that the mammy has to take charge. Should she not do stuff for her own benefit? Should she not ever take a break from her child? That's stupid and leads to this whole "child king" thing that I've been reading about.

edellc wrote: »

...Op stay calm and enjoy now, dont be rushing to push this and that your child will let you know when they are ready, its all part of the process so just relax and take each hour of each day as it comes

dublinlady wrote: »

Totally agree - what a stupid unnecessary comment.

Op - their tummies so small at that age they can't feed enough to last them longer really - but time will soon pass - saying that my 15 week old sometimes still only does 3 hrs - but sometimes 4 now on formula. She used to be breastfed - was every 2 hrs then and each feed took an hr - so 3 hrs seems great!!

These two quotes (and all the other similiar ones here) are the ones you should be reading. Yes, babies tummy is still small. The only real way to stretch them out is minutely. Ten minutes - fifteen minutes at a time. But don't push yourself or the baby. If the baby is upset, you'll be upset and that does neither of ye any good.

At 3 weeks is when I felt the absolute worst. So don't feel bad that you needed to ask. This was the stage when, breastfeeding, I introduced a bottle to help me recover a bit. And I felt like the worst mother in the world. Which is the stupidest thing to think ever (over something so small). Good luck. And keep reading and posting here for advice. It was the best thing I ever did.

LegacyUser

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

She's not talking about starving baby, she's talking about stretching out the feeds. Big difference. With a new baby you have plenty of people giving their two cents about what baby 'should' be doing. So coming on here asking about what she's been told the op is doing nothing wrong. She gas a new baby and is dealing with the demands of that....she really doesn't need the judgmental crap with it.

3 hourly feeds are exhausting...you're only finished one feed when you're starting another, so looking for a bit of a break isn't childline stuff.

It may not be "childline stuff" but it's leaving a very young baby hungry.

3 hourly feeds are exhausting, yes. Welcome to being a parent.

Enforcing your own timetable on a very small baby is selfish and irresponsible. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but being a good mother is supposed to be difficult....there are no shortcuts....baby should come first ALWAYS.

They are 100% dependent on you.

pwurple

Good gravy, the person asked a question. They are a new parent who has been given conflicting information and asked rather than driving on.

There is NEVER ever anything wrong with asking.

Get the flip over yourself unreg.

silly

Palacko wrote: »

It may not be "childline stuff" but it's leaving a very young baby hungry.

3 hourly feeds are exhausting, yes. Welcome to being a parent.

Enforcing your own timetable on a very small baby is selfish and irresponsible. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but being a good mother is supposed to be difficult....there are no shortcuts....baby should come first ALWAYS.

They are 100% dependent on you.

one has to wonder why you are gone unreg for something that you clearly feel so strongly about....??

OP, listen to the other new mums and go with that.
Its 11 yrs since i had my last baby, the 2nd one will be here soon and i know i will be on here looking for all sorts of advice..
Does your baby take a soother? that might relax them for a little bit before the next feed?
Can a pity cry sometimes be mistaken for a hungry cry?

red fraggle

i feel a bit like you are being attacked here. i hope you dont get upset by some of the comments. I am a new mam and it is very hard. you know your baby best and in another few weeks you will know him/her even more. its all a learning experience. maybe just feed him/her every 3 hours for another while or extend it slowly like 10 mins as another poster said.

just recently (20 weeks into my daughters life:rolleyes:) i realised she is well able go 3 hours between feeds at the weekend when her daddy is here:rolleyes: so i decided during the week i needed to try help her go 3 hours so now instead of thinking oh i better feed you now you're crying i think ok lets change the game we are playing, go look at the birds, go for a walk, have a cuddle etc. her cry is a hysterical cry no matter what up.:eek: her cry is only really different when its a teething pain cry.

i know when my baby was 3 weeks i was all over the place and she was feeding every 2 hours and i needed my mam to come over a good bit just to have someone there with me to help with dinner etc. ask for help off ppl if you can sometimes even the company helps.

just take it easy and enjoy getting to know your baby. if he/she is going 3 hours between feeds no problem then it will be easy for her to go a bit longer when the time is right. i know your getting lots of different views so take what you think is right. but 3 weeks is fairly young she may need the 3 hourly feeds for a while. make sure u set up a nice bedtime routine eg quiet dark room with music maybe so he/she knows its nighttime and this might help him/her to go longer during the night quicker.

Goodluck and dont forget to enjoy the beautiful baby you made

Hannibal Smith

Palacko wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

She's not talking about starving baby, she's talking about stretching out the feeds. Big difference. With a new baby you have plenty of people giving their two cents about what baby 'should' be doing. So coming on here asking about what she's been told the op is doing nothing wrong. She gas a new baby and is dealing with the demands of that....she really doesn't need the judgmental crap with it.

3 hourly feeds are exhausting...you're only finished one feed when you're starting another, so looking for a bit of a break isn't childline stuff.

It may not be "childline stuff" but it's leaving a very young baby hungry.

3 hourly feeds are exhausting, yes. Welcome to being a parent.

Enforcing your own timetable on a very small baby is selfish and irresponsible. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but being a good mother is supposed to be difficult....there are no shortcuts....baby should come first ALWAYS.

They are 100% dependent on you.

It's not selfish and irresponsible...a mother who completely ignores her own needs is an accident waiting to happen and no mother should be put under pressure to ignore them. It is selfish and irresponsible for anyone to expect that of any woman.

There are plenty of short cuts to parenthood. This forum is full of suggestions and ways to make parenthood easier for all. There is absolutely no need for any parent to be a martyr and feel like they have to struggle in order to be a good parent.

And I don't think the op was looking for opinions on stretching out fees, she was looking for advice on whether it would work, and if so how to do it.

Lola92

I know that the newborn stage is exhausting OP but I honestly think that 3 hours at this stage is not bad going. Personally I wouldn't be trying to stretch baby to longer feeds for a few weeks yet. I am very much pro feeding on demand and child centred-ness in general so I think that we should follow baby's cues, especially at that young age - 3/4weeks? Your baby just doesn't understand anything other than hunger pains in their belly!

I am sorry if this isn't what you want to hear, and I do empathise with your situation, I know the lack of sleep particularly can be tough but it is for such a short time in the scheme of things. I hope you don't take this the wrong way OP, I know we are trying to get along and do the best we can but this is just my take on things!

LegacyUser

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

It's not selfish and irresponsible...a mother who completely ignores her own needs is an accident waiting to happen and no mother should be put under pressure to ignore them. It is selfish and irresponsible for anyone to expect that of any woman.

There are plenty of short cuts to parenthood. This forum is full of suggestions and ways to make parenthood easier for all. There is absolutely no need for any parent to be a martyr and feel like they have to struggle in order to be a good parent.

And I don't think the op was looking for opinions on stretching out fees, she was looking for advice on whether it would work, and if so how to do it.

Ok so, to answer the OP's question....

(a) whether it would work?

Yes, it will work. Your baby will definitely not cry as much - the more it gets to know that crying will not bring food, the less your baby will cry.

(b) how to do it?

Give baby food exactly when you want to. It is very unlikely it will physically suffer from lack of food, however as per (a) above, it's trust in calling it's parents when distressed, hungry or whatever else will fail. Your baby will not cry as much as a baby whose cries are answered.

I think these are called "good babies" these days, so you will have raised a "good baby".

PS - I don't expect this to be allowed on the forum, I know how things work here now.

deeks

Palacko wrote: »

Ok so, to answer the OP's question....

(a) whether it would work?

Yes, it will work. Your baby will definitely not cry as much - the more it gets to know that crying will not bring food, the less your baby will cry.

(b) how to do it?

Give baby food exactly when you want to. It is very unlikely it will physically suffer from lack of food, however as per (a) above, it's trust in calling it's parents when distressed, hungry or whatever else will fail. Your baby will not cry as much as a baby whose cries are answered.

I think these are called "good babies" these days, so you will have raised a "good baby".

PS - I don't expect this to be allowed on the forum, I know how things work here now.

I hope you feel good about yourself for attacking a new mother who's obviously stressed and just came on here looking for some advice. I know from experience that it even helps just to read a few replies from people in a similar position so you don't feel totally alone and useless. If your plan was to hurt and upset someone needlessly - well done. You must be very proud.

OP - stick with it. It does get easier. And please don't let this experience sour you with regards to asking questions here. The vast vast majority of people on here are very helpful and its a great resource to have.

Hannibal Smith

Palacko wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

It's not selfish and irresponsible...a mother who completely ignores her own needs is an accident waiting to happen and no mother should be put under pressure to ignore them. It is selfish and irresponsible for anyone to expect that of any woman.

There are plenty of short cuts to parenthood. This forum is full of suggestions and ways to make parenthood easier for all. There is absolutely no need for any parent to be a martyr and feel like they have to struggle in order to be a good parent.

And I don't think the op was looking for opinions on stretching out fees, she was looking for advice on whether it would work, and if so how to do it.

Ok so, to answer the OP's question....

(a) whether it would work?

Yes, it will work. Your baby will definitely not cry as much - the more it gets to know that crying will not bring food, the less your baby will cry.

(b) how to do it?

Give baby food exactly when you want to. It is very unlikely it will physically suffer from lack of food, however as per (a) above, it's trust in calling it's parents when distressed, hungry or whatever else will fail. Your baby will not cry as much as a baby whose cries are answered.

I think these are called "good babies" these days, so you will have raised a "good baby".

PS - I don't expect this to be allowed on the forum, I know how things work here now.

The funniest thing about a troll is, they come in to a thread are as offensive as they can be, others challenge them and their retort is a self pitying 'i know how things work round here' boohoo type response.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother.

Redpunto

To be honest, my little fella is 1 now and I fed him when he was hungary, put him to sleep when he was tired - took all my cues from him and hes one of the happiest babies out there! This is my third and on my first two I thought i had to follow some unwritten routine but on this one Ive gone with the flow and listened to him as opposed to people telling me you should be doing this or he should be doing that. Most important thing is for a happy mammy and then you'll get a happy baby.

LegacyUser

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The funniest thing about a troll is, they come in to a thread are as offensive as they can be, others challenge them and their retort is a self pitying 'i know how things work round here' boohoo type response.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother.

I am not a troll. This is my opinion and I am expressing it. The 3-week old baby in question cannot express an opinion, but if they could I am sure they would prefer to be fed when hungry, rather than not fed and ignored.

My "boohoo" response, as you call it, is because I have had several replies not published here, for whatever reason.

Very easy to dismiss someone as a "troll" rather than tackling the opinion raised. I am unflinching in my opinion on this, I think it is cruel and I think it is wrong. I am not one of these "if it feels right, do it" types.

Somethings in life are wrong. This is wrong and it should not be recommended or jusitfied to suit the parents. The 3-week old baby's needs MUST be met on demand. They are 3-weeks old for god's sake.

Orion

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The funniest thing about a troll is, they come in to a thread are as offensive as they can be, others challenge them and their retort is a self pitying 'i know how things work round here' boohoo type response.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother.

Hannibal - please report posts if you have a problem with them. Namecalling doesn't help.

Palacko wrote: »

I am not a troll. This is my opinion and I am expressing it. ...

Well you are coming across as one - on this thread and another. Expressing an opinion is one thing. Deliberately goading with that opinion is another thing entirely.

My "boohoo" response, as you call it, is because I have had several replies not published here, for whatever reason.

You have had exactly 1 post not published - because it was inflammatory.

No further inflammatory posts will be approved on this thread or any other from someone hiding behind unregged posting.

Hannibal Smith

Palacko wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The funniest thing about a troll is, they come in to a thread are as offensive as they can be, others challenge them and their retort is a self pitying 'i know how things work round here' boohoo type response.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not even going to bother.

I am not a troll. This is my opinion and I am expressing it. The 3-week old baby in question cannot express an opinion, but if they could I am sure they would prefer to be fed when hungry, rather than not fed and ignored.

My "boohoo" response, as you call it, is because I have had several replies not published here, for whatever reason.

Very easy to dismiss someone as a "troll" rather than tackling the opinion raised. I am unflinching in my opinion on this, I think it is cruel and I think it is wrong. I am not one of these "if it feels right, do it" types.

Somethings in life are wrong. This is wrong and it should not be recommended or jusitfied to suit the parents. The 3-week old baby's needs MUST be met on demand. They are 3-weeks old for god's sake.

Point me to one post in the thread that recommended the op stretch out the feeds (note: stretch out feeds, NOT starve the baby)