Breastfed baby growth chart

[karmab]

Hi there-

This is the first time I've posted anything to this group, but have found these message boards immensely useful since the birth of our DD.

DD has been exclusively breastfed since birth and has been growing rapidly. At 4 months she was off the charts at 16 pounds and 26.5 inches. Many of my friends who have exclusively breastfed (as well as Dr. Sears and the LLL) say that this is quite normal, so I'm not too worried. But I was surprised to hear from a nurse at my ped's office that baby growth charts used today are based on formula-fed babies, and sponsered by the formula companies.

Anyone know where I can find a baby growth chart for breastfed babies?

Or even yet, I'm really interested in creating one if parents out there are willing to supply their data. (Boy, the science geek in me is really coming out). If you're interested, please give sex of your baby, birthweight, and list of weight + length measured during the time (in weeks) you exclusively breastfed (no solids, formula, water...).

Am I being ambitious by trying to do this?
Thanks for your time and any help!

Yours,
Beatrice - Mommy to Karma Lilian 6/19/03

[lisams]

Yes, isn't that amazing that they use charts made from formula fed baby stats only? Here's a link to a preliminary chart for breastfed babies http://www.promom.org/bf_info/growth.html

My DD has always been off the charts and my ped said not to worry at all since she is breastfed.

Hope this helps!
Lisa

[Rachels]

Yeah, I've posted about this before. Don't worry. Formula is made from cow's milk, which is designed to help baby cows double their weight in the first month. Zoikes. Human breastmilk doesn't do that. It stands to reason that babies fed on cow's milk would grow at a different rate than babies fed on mother's milk. Look at your baby, not the charts. :)

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[heva]

OK, I got really curious about this topic today and found the growth charts from the CDC are based on the following:

"The reference population used to construct the CDC Growth Charts is a nationally representative sample. Data were obtained from a series of national health examinations and surveys conducted by NCHS from 1963–1994 and from supplemental data..."

"The new reference represents the combined growth pattern of breast- and formula-fed infants in the U.S. Approximately 50 percent of the infants were reported to breastfeed with about 33 percent breastfeeding for 3 months or longer."

So, in other words, the data from which the charts are created is up to 40 years old and only 1/3 of it is from breastfed infants. Realize that it does take a long time to get enough data to make these charts valid, and it is only done periodically because there is no money in it (especially for breastfed infants, KWIM?). If you're looking to compare your children against all other kids, it's still probably a fairly good measure, but if the sample you seek is just breastfed infants, it will not be very accurate.

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

I remember this being brought up before, but I have heard it both ways so didn't know which way it applies...

Are FF fed babies "charts" on the higher side or the lower side.

What I thought I had read here before was in response to a baby that was "off the charts" on the lower side...and they were being encouraged "not to worry" because FF charts are used at offices. (thus I took that to mean FF charts are geared to represent higher stats.

I might be reading this wrong but it sounds like in this case scenrio the baby is off the chart on the higher side...(am I reading this wrong?????) So that the charts are differnt I understand...but the explanation I've read has addressed both angles so I am so confused...

I would love to know because I was trying to explain this today to someone and now I think I messed it up...

You would think they would use two differnt charts if differnt that is for certain...
Edited to say no need to educate me on how FF is not meant for my baby (on this question)...just looking for an answer on the comparison of charts so I am informed when chatting with friends who think I know so much from hanging out here...:) So no long schpiel needed PLEASE...just the answer as to the different charts (higher vs lower) since I've heard it both ways here before...

Neve
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[Momof3Labs]

Neve, I've heard it both ways, too, many many times. I think that doctors say whatever the parent needs to hear. Colin has been at the low end of the weight charts since he was four months old, and I was told that it was fine because he is breastfed. Whatever. I think that it is fine because he has tall skinny genes (not from me, though, LOL) and that's the shape that he will be regardless of what he eats!

[lisams]

Interesting! My DD has always been at the top of, or above the charts, and my ped. told me not to worry since she was breastfed. He said that a "chubby" breastfed baby will burn off the fat when they are about 3. He mentioned something about the hormones in breastmilk. I wonder if he was just saying this to curb my concerns about her being so "chubby" and way up there on the charts.

I think I remember reading somewhere that it isn't necessarily the high or low end, but the curve and how it curves differently for a breastfed baby. I can't remember where I read that, I wish I could remember.

I wish I could have a better answer for you, sorry!! Now you've got me wondering!!!
Lisa

EDITED: I just found this statement on the National Center for Health Statistics website:


Are these charts appropriate for exclusively breast-fed babies?

The 2000 CDC growth charts can be used to assess the growth of exclusively breast-fed infants, however when interpreting the growth pattern one must take into account that mode of infant feeding can influence infant growth. In general, exclusively breast-fed infants tend to gain weight more rapidly in the first 2 to 3 months. From 6 to 12 months breast-fed infants tend to weigh less than formula-fed infants.


So it sounds like it could go both ways depending on the ago of the baby. Now it's starting to make sense! :) HTH!

[jmofarrill]

Well, this is handy because Anwyn gained 2 pounds per month for the first three months, one pound the fourth month, and now she has *almost* put on one pound over the past THREE months. How's that for tapering?! LOL Now we're at six months and she doesn't weigh 15 lbs yet; it's nice for me to see a pattern that Anwyn fits into. Not that I was ever worried, but it still is nice.

[Rachels]

That's what I understand, too. BF babies are sometimes diagnosed as failure to thrive when their weight drops off after the first few months, but it seems to be a normal phenomenon. But FF babies don't typically do that, and the charts are based largely on FF babies.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Momof3Labs]

Okay, yeah, that's pretty much Colin's pattern too:

Birth: 8lbs, 4oz
1 month: 10lbs
2 months: 12lbs, 5oz
4 months: 13lbs, 14oz
5 months: 14lbs, 13oz
6 months: 15lbs
7 months: 16lbs, 4oz
9 months: 17lbs, 8oz
10 months: 18lbs, 9oz
1 year: 20lbs, 10oz

And Colin was exclusively bf'd to 6 months, and bf'd + solids since then.

Sounds pretty similar to Anwyn's pattern! And, Michelle, Colin is a happy, healthy, thriving baby, so don't let it worry you!

[houseof3boys]

That is Ryan's pattern too! He was 8 lb 3 oz at birth and everything else looks similar to where he has been. I'll have to tell DH that we know he will be 20 pounds when he is 1! Too funny how similar that pattern is Lori.

[Momof3Labs]

LOL - how about not telling DH, but offering to place a bet now? Make the payoff something good - like a backrub or foot massage!

[spu]

I read the same thing about cow's milk meant to double the birth weight of a baby cow in 1 year. zoinks is right!

My babies were exclusively breastfed for 6.5 mos, and even at 16 mos, they stil recieve most of their nutrition from breastmilk. They eat alot of foods, but intermittenly. Their weights have been on the low side of the 'charts' but I don't worry. My dr. had a good point - he said to take a look at myself and see where I would fall on the charts... I'm kind of short and kind of small, so compared to other women my age, I'd be low on the charts too. Plus, as babies, my DH and I were both on the small side (even as formula fed babies). So much of it is hereditary.

It still bugs me though when people comment on how small they are. That's another thread though...

susan

twin girls 7.20.02
charlotte + else

http://sunger2.home.comcast.net/bash/nonflash/year.html