Follow On Milk - What would you recommend?

delain

I kept mine on the original formula until 12 months then on to cow's milk, you may find that if they get used to having 'formula tasting' milk until they are three odd then they won't have cow's milk at all and miss out on valuable calcium later on. This happened to someone i know.

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone else has said this.

It's only my opinion

honeypop

Our HV's say there is no need to switch to follow on milk at all, and stage 1 milk until they are 12 months and then move on to cows milk is absolutely fine. They also say the Aptamil is the closest formula to breast milk and they always (unofficially) recoomend that one.

If your baby is happy on the stage 1 or hungry baby milk then there isn't really a need to change to follow on milk. Although if it's something you feel you should be doing, then Aptamil.

Glamazon

Thanks everyone - good to see that it hasn't had much effect changing milks.

My understanding was there wasnt enough iron in the Stage 1/2 milks and that you needed to move onto the follow on.

fsdss

Glamazon wrote: »

Thanks everyone - good to see that it hasn't had much effect changing milks.

My understanding was there wasnt enough iron in the Stage 1/2 milks and that you needed to move onto the follow on.

baby uses mums iron in the first six months (gained gestationally).
as far as i'm aware, all baby milks have added iron.

you should get them on extra iron through weaning or additional vitamin drops if your concerned.

kelloggs36

i have 3 very healthy children (21, 12 and 6) and I didn't put any of them on follow on milk. They all went onto ordinary full-fat cow's milk at the age of 6 months. They were weaned and eating solids by then so they got extra iron from their food. Provided that their diet is varied and contains all the vitamins and minerals, they don't need any extra. Personally I just think that follow on milk is an excuse to extract money from us as it costs a fortune.

delain

Glamazon wrote: »

Thanks everyone - good to see that it hasn't had much effect changing milks.

My understanding was there wasnt enough iron in the Stage 1/2 milks and that you needed to move onto the follow on.

One word: SPINACH!

Its got so much iron you could almost make a ship with it, and you can easily hide it in babyfood, plus it's a great thing for them to get used to eating.

Sounds like the cow & gate advert got to you!

It's all hype, milk is not the only place your baby should be getting iron from.

bettybeaver

delain wrote: »

One word: SPINACH!

Its got so much iron you could almost make a ship with it, and you can easily hide it in babyfood, plus it's a great thing for them to get used to eating.

I hate to disapoint you but the myth about spinach containing mega loads of iron is completely untrue, despite the claims from Popeye!! When the first table of vitamin and mineral contents was produced back in 19something or other, the secretary that typed it put the decimal point in the wrong place giving spinach 10 times as much iron as it actually had. This went to press before anyone realised the mistake and for a number of years everyone believed what they read, and now it is an urban myth.
So the best source of iron, from what I can remember, is any green leafy veg, which yes can include spinach, but it is no better than brocolli or cabbage.

delain

bettybeaver wrote: »

delain wrote: »

One word: SPINACH!

Its got so much iron you could almost make a ship with it, and you can easily hide it in babyfood, plus it's a great thing for them to get used to eating.

I hate to disapoint you but the myth about spinach containing mega loads of iron is completely untrue, despite the claims from Popeye!! When the first table of vitamin and mineral contents was produced back in 19something or other, the secretary that typed it put the decimal point in the wrong place giving spinach 10 times as much iron as it actually had. This went to press before anyone realised the mistake and for a number of years everyone believed what they read, and now it is an urban myth.
So the best source of iron, from what I can remember, is any green leafy veg, which yes can include spinach, but it is no better than brocolli or cabbage.

I stand corrected!

Maybe not just spinach then.

I still believe that a baby can get as much iron as they need from their diet without you having to pay an extra £15 odd a week for 'special' milk.

creased-leach

kelloggs36 wrote: »

i have 3 very healthy children (21, 12 and 6) and I didn't put any of them on follow on milk. They all went onto ordinary full-fat cow's milk at the age of 6 months. They were weaned and eating solids by then so they got extra iron from their food. Provided that their diet is varied and contains all the vitamins and minerals, they don't need any extra. Personally I just think that follow on milk is an excuse to extract money from us as it costs a fortune.

I'm 100% with you on that. By the time daughter #4 was born, follow on milk was en-vogue. One look at her bright, strong, healthy older sisters was enough to make me think "nah."

It's like kitten food. These days the ads would have us believe that kitten food is absolutely essential...cats have been around a very long time...

bettybeaver

I still believe that a baby can get as much iron as they need from their diet without you having to pay an extra £15 odd a week for 'special' milk.[/QUOTE]


I couldn't agree more, after all how did we, our mothers, our grandmothers, etc grow and develop into adults without follow on milk???:)