Follow On Milk - What would you recommend?

Fitzio

Other

From what I have read, I don't think there is a need to switch to follow on milk so will probably just continue giving H Apitimil Stage 1 until she is 12 months old. I haven't discussed it with HVs though so may change my mind, but from my own research, I think it's probably a marketing ploy.

Buttonmoons

I did the follow on milk until she was 2. To be fair, I did try her with it at 1 but she hated it, so kept her on that. She still hates cows milk (as do I!) but will have it in cereal, and SUPRISE at nursery.

I think we used the SMA follow on milk, as she was on SMA gold before that.

Oh and we found it fine and dandy

honeypop

skintchick wrote: »

Yes they do say that, but my understanding is that it may be the 'closest' but it isn;t actually close, if you see what I mean. Like a tomato is more like an apple than a banana but it still isn;t an apple.

Yes it isn't very similar, but surely what they mean is that if you HAVE to give formula then it is the closest thing, regardless of how un-close it is, it is still the 'closest' out of all the formulas. So when I quoted them as saying it is the closest to breastmilk, that is still what I mean. Yes we all know 'breast is best' blah blah blah and nothing can compare, but like you say some people cannot or will not breastfeed and may want to go with the closest formulated milk they can.

delain

Glamazon wrote: »

delain wrote: »

So are you advising that he has no milk at all? (confused smilie)
The follow on milk is no more expensive than the milk he is currently on.
I wouldnt put him on cows milk until he's 1yo.

No, I am advising the mum in question that his current formula will be perfectly adequate until he is one, then cows milk as he should also by the time he is one be getting all the iron through his solid food and cow's milk without needing overpriced follow on milk.

ETA I don't know whats happened to the quote thingy on this thread. Says I am quoting my own post and I wasn't, just in case anyone thinks I just changed sides

Also cross posted, glad to see someone explained what I meant. Cheers guys! :beer:

clairec79

Spendless wrote: »

I didn't put mine on a follow up milk at all. My HV advised me not to bother, she said the reason why they have them is they market them from 6 months to 2 years meaning you start it and then are still buying it when the child could have cows milk instead (from 12 months, though check my kids are 9 and 6 and advice changes all the time). As said you can make sure they have iron in their diet by the food you give them.

Plus they can legally advertise the follow on milk but not the first milks - so advertise the follow on and it advertises the first milk in a similar tin

onlyroz

Just buy the cheapest.

skintchick

honeypop wrote: »

Yes it isn't very similar, but surely what they mean is that if you HAVE to give formula then it is the closest thing, regardless of how un-close it is, it is still the 'closest' out of all the formulas. So when I quoted them as saying it is the closest to breastmilk, that is still what I mean. Yes we all know 'breast is best' blah blah blah and nothing can compare, but like you say some people cannot or will not breastfeed and may want to go with the closest formulated milk they can.

None of which I disagree with, it';s just that by trotting out the manufacturer's line that it is 'the closest to breastmilk' you collude with them in deceiving women that it is any way as good as breastmilk. Ultimately, it may be 'the closest formulated milk' but it still ain't close by a long chalk.

But we digress.

There was a prog on tonight about kids' food and follow-on milks - basically it said follow-on milks are unnecessary. THink it was Panorama.

MrsTinks

Aptamil

Say what you like... DD was FF partially from 3 months and completely from 4 months old... normal stage 1 didn't agree with her, the comfort aptamil worked great. Then we had a little while on normal stage 1 (couple of boxes probably) and she was constantly hungry so tried Hungry baby... not much difference but a little. At 6 months she was moved on to 6 month milk (is it stage 3? I forget and can't be bothered to walk to the kitchen LOL) and she was and is content on that. Stage 1 just doesn't keep her filled up (had to buy some when my crappy local Tesco had run out of stage 3) so it may make no difference to some babies but it did to mine. But then I'm a horrible mother - I started letting her have "food" at 4 months - I say let... it was more a case of no longer able to stop her actually trying to grab it out of my mouth
Naughty horrid me

honeypop

MrsTine wrote: »

But then I'm a horrible mother - I started letting her have "food" at 4 months - I say let... it was more a case of no longer able to stop her actually trying to grab it out of my mouth
Naughty horrid me

I'll join you there, same circumstances with my son. Bad bad mummies.

Although the local HV's run a weaning session at 4 months and actually confirmed it is OK to do this in the right circumstances, contrary to the 'any food before 6 months is terrible' view.

creased-leach

honeypop wrote: »

I'll join you there, same circumstances with my son. Bad bad mummies.

Although the local HV's run a weaning session at 4 months and actually confirmed it is OK to do this in the right circumstances, contrary to the 'any food before 6 months is terrible' view.

Such codswallop though isn't it? How do people cope in countries where mums have to chew the babies food?