Micro mouse

[norsegirl]

Had our 9-month pediatrician's check up today and little mouse is very little indeed. For weight and height she's dropped down to the 4th percentile. The pediatrician commented that we'd keep an eye on it, that I should be feeding her more foods with fats (drizzle olive oil on her veggies, feed her avocado, butter her bread etc) and that she'd be worried if she dropped into the 3rd percentile or lower. What difference does that single percentage make? Also I'm wondering if I should be worried at all. We aren't all going to be perfectly average, and my family and Jason's both run small, so it's not like this is an entirely unexpected result. Also, she's proportionate, and it's not like she's looking slim. I'd be more worried about a baby that was 75th percentile for height but 25th for weight for example, even though both of those are within the more "normal" range.

She's still getting most of her daily calories from breast milk, but this is making me doubt that decision. Am I stunting her growth by not offering her more food?

On the flip side, her head has gone from 10th percentile last time to 30th percentile. There's a little part of me that's wondering if all this measuring isn't just a little bit subjective. By which I mean that other than the weight, two people could measure the same baby bit and come up with different answers depending on how baby stretched her legs or bent her head down or how the string around the head went over certain bumps.

I'm torn between wanting her to flourish and offering her more food and wanting to continue my laid-back parenting. Feeding food is a bit of a pain in the butt compared to breast milk, so I just tend not to do it as much. There's also conflicting info that I've read that implies that up to a year most of the calories are supposed to come from milk and eating is just to get practice with the act of eating. Is that really true or am I starving her?

Aaargh, this parenting thing is difficult.

Comments

[hel_ana]

There's also conflicting info that I've read that implies that up to a year most of the calories are supposed to come from milk and eating is just to get practice with the act of eating. Is that really true or am I starving her?

That's what I've read, too. Then I got read the riot act at my 6 month appointment, because she "needs cereal, because she needs more iron, calcium, and carbohydrates". So we're compromising between the baby-led weaning (which freaked my doctor right the fuck out) and the traditional approach. Which means that I still gave her a strip of my beef last night, but we also give her baby oatmeal.

[belgar.livejournal.com]

Don't be pressured into feeding too early, Breast milk is best for them, and if they are doing well on just breast milk they are fine. Don't worry about measurements too much. Feeding is important if they are not thriving on only milk. As long as they are gaining and growing and have energy I WOULD NOT WORRY. The one down side with only breast milk is they may be low on iron ( it depends on what your nutrition is like. With all of our kids they were breast fed of at least a year. Food was introduced earlier (9 months ?? ) but it was just to play with and get used to. And the cereal was first made with breast milk.

[hel_ana]

Merritt's not on breast milk. She's been on formula since the catastrophic failure of breastfeeding at about 12-13 weeks.

She's thriving, so I'm not worried at all.. she's in the 75th percentile for height and the 40th for weight, and she's super healthy and happy. And she really *wants* food. She's very fond of her cereal, she likes banana, she's tried avocado and likes that.. she also likes pork ribs, which was the thing that made my doctor almost swallow her tongue.