Conflict Between the Variable and Constant
(^) The greatest tension with feeding philosophies centers on which feeding
indicator to use—the variable of the hunger cue or the constant of the
clock. The standard Attachment Parenting/La Leche League doctrine
insists on child-led feedings exclusively, thus, the hunger cue is
dominant. The hyper-schedulist sees the fixed segments of time as the
final determinant of feeding. Thus, the clock is dominant. Where does the
healthy truth rest? Not at either extreme. The weakness in logic of these
two views becomes obvious when placed into their respective equations.
The child-led feeding equation looks like this:
Hunger Cue + Nothing = Feeding Time
Weakness in practice:
- The child-led feeding is based on the faulty assumption that the hunger
cue is always reliable. It isn’t. Hunger cues only work if the hunger cues
are present. Weak, sickly, sluggish, or sleepy babies may not signal for
food for four, five or six hours. So exclusive cue feeding puts them at risk
of not receiving proper nourishment. If the cue is not present, the baby
doesn’t get fed. - If the cue is consistently less than two hours, it leads to maternal
fatigue. Fatigue is recognized as the number one reason for mothers
giving up breast-feeding.^5 Exclusive cue-response feeding can easily lead
to infant dehydration, low weight gain, failure to thrive, and frustration
for both baby and mom.^6
- The inconsistency of cue feeding also discourages the establishment of
healthy sleep patterns as we will demonstrate later.
The Clock-feeding equation looks like this: