The infant feeding schedule reconsidered
In the past, Western “baby experts” often instructed parents to feed their babies at regularly-spaced intervals of 3- or 4-hours. Today, official medical recommendations have shifted in favor of letting babies decide. Why the change?
There are a number of reasons, but the simple answer is this: When we let babies determine the timing and the length of their own feeds, they are more likely to get what they need: Not too little, and not too much.
It begins in the newborn period. If newborn babies aren’t fed frequently enough, they are at higher risk for dehydration and underfeeding. So the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) advises parents to feed infants at least once every 2-3 hours — whenever babies show signs of hunger (AAP 2015).
During the subsequent months, babies may be able to go longer between meals. But feeding responsively — on cue — remains the ideal approach.
- It can help breastfed babies adjust to natural variations in milk quality (Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences 1991).
- It can help bottle-bed babies avoid overfeeding.
- And it can help any infant cope with the challenges of getting enough to eat during a growth spurt.
All babies experience fluctuations in their energy requirements. Feeding on cue makes it easier for infants to increase or decrease their intake as needed (Tylka et al 2015).
That’s probably why responsive feeding is associated with healthier growth trajectories in babies (Chen et al 2020; Fuglestad et al 2017).
And that’s not all. Research hints that responsive feeding benefits babies in additional ways. It might affect an infant’s emotional functioning. It might support better cognitive outcomes.
So it seems that the best infant feeding schedule is the one that babies devise for themselves.
But what is the evidence? Let’s take more detailed look.
The infant feeding schedule in evolutionary perspective
Mammal babies everywhere begin life on a diet of milk. But they don’t all time their feedings in the same way. In some species, mothers “park” or “cache” their young in nests, and leave them there.
It’s a strategy that allows the mother to go foraging without the fuss of a tag-along infant. But it only works if there’s a way to keep the babies from starving during those long separations. How do they cope?
The solution is two-fold.
1. Mothers produce milk that is high in fat, and high in protein — what we might call super-fuel.
2. Infants have the ability to suckle very fast and efficiently when they finally get to feed.
Together, these elements permit babies to “tank up” on a highly-concentrated food–enough to last them for many hours.
Mammals that follow this strategy are called “spaced feeders,” and their milk is very rich indeed.
A good example of a spaced feeder is the rabbit, which produces milk that is 18.3% fat and 13.9% protein (Jenness 1974).
By contrast, other mammals keep their babies with them as they forage. Exactly how they do this varies from species to species. Some, like monkeys, carry their babies. Others, like cows, have their infants follow them around on foot.
But regardless, the babies stay close, and along with proximity comes frequent meals. Babies tend to initiate feedings, and suckle at a more leisurely rate. They don’t need to tank up on a super-fuel, and so their mothers don’t make one. The milk is less caloric, more dilute.
A good example of a continual feeder is a cow, which produces milk that is typically 3.7% fat and 3.4% protein (Jenness 1974).
What about humans?
In some modern, industrial societies, humans act like spaced feeders. Babies are “parked” in cribs or cradles and get fed after intervals of 3-4 hours.
But were we designed for this strategy?
Does the biology of human breastfeeding have the earmarks of spaced feeding?
The answer is no because
- human milk is relatively low in fat (3.8%) and protein (1%), and
- human infants suckle at the slow pace typical of continual feeders.
So our basic physiology gives us away. We don’t produce super-fuel, and our infants lack the spaced-feeder’s knack for super-fast milk extraction. And that’s consistent with the behavior of other members of our family tree. Continual feeding is the strategy of choice among all of our close relatives — including bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas.
It is also the strategy observed among human beings living in traditional societies.
In hunter-gatherer societies, babies aren’t just nursed on cue. They are also nursed very frequently — about 2-4 times an hour (Konner 2006).
In other traditional societies, parents don’t match this extreme pace, but feedings are nonetheless initiated by the infants.
In a survey of non-industrial societies (which included nomadic pastoralists and settled agricultural peoples) anthropologists found that “on demand” feeding was the rule. In every society for which information about the infant feeding schedule was available (25 out of 25), people fed their infants on cue (Severn Nelson et al 2000).
This, then, is our basic physiology and our evolutionary heritage. But how much does it matter? Is this something we can work around?
Mightn’t we be able to keep babies equally happy and healthy using a strict infant feeding schedule? Perhaps it’s just a matter of tweaking the timing of feeds.
It sounds straightforward, but there are stumbling blocks.
Babies vary in their needs — from individual to individual, and from day to day
Different babies have different needs, and the same baby experiences fluctuations in energy requirements over time.
What if your baby has the urge to be more active, and needs more food to fuel her activities?
What if your infant needs more fluids because it’s hot, or because he’s coming down with a virus?
What if your baby is in the middle of a growth spurt?
It isn’t merely that you need to adopt a schedule that is individualized to your baby’s current needs. You also need a schedule that keeps changing in response his or her future needs.
That’s pretty hard to do unless you are paying attention to your baby, offering meals when you observe signs of hunger. And if you are doing that, you aren’t imposing a strictly-timed infant feeding schedule. By definition, you are feeding on cue.
Moreover, the baby’s need for food and fluids is only one side of the equation — the demand side. There is also the supply side of the equation. If your baby is on formula, it’s easy to figure out what your baby is being supplied with. You can read the label, and know your baby is getting the same formulation from one feed to the next.
But breast milk doesn’t work that way. Human breast milk is roughly similar in composition from one woman to the next, but there are significant differences. Not only does breast milk vary between individuals. It also varies between milk samples produced by the same woman at different points in time.
Breast milk varies in caloric content
When Shelly Hester and her colleagues analyzed 22 published studies on the metabolizable energy content of breast milk, the researchers were able to estimate the calories found per serving: About 65 calories per 100 milliliters (mL) of breast milk.
But hang on. That estimate is the average for milk expressed between 2 weeks and 6 weeks postpartum (Hester et al 2012).
Milk produced earlier is substantially less caloric. Colostrum, the milk produced during the first few days, has only about 53 calories per 100 mL. Then, between approximately 6 and 14 days postpartum, the caloric density increases slightly, averaging 58 calories per 100 mL (Hester et al 2012).
And milk produced later — after the 6 weeks postpartum — becomes increasingly caloric as time goes by. That’s because the fat content of breast milk tends to increase the longer a woman continues to nurse.
When researchers have tracked lactating mothers over time, they’ve found that the fat content in milk produced at 6 months is higher than it is at 3 months (Szabó et al 2010).
That’s a lot of variation already, but we’ve only scratched the surface because individual mothers vary substantially in the energy content of their milk. Studies indicate that individual woman may range widely in the fat content of their milk — from 2 grams per 100mL to 5 grams per mL (Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences 1991).
And other research has identified some of the causes of this variation: Diet, body mass index, maternal age, socioeconomic status, and even smoking habits have been linked with differences in the amount of fat in breast milk (Daniel et al 2021; Innis 2014; Rocquelin et al 1998; Argov-Argaman et al 2017; Al-Tamer et al 2006; Agostoni et al 2003).
So it shouldn’t surprise us if there is no “one size fits all” infant feeding schedule that’s going to serve every baby equally well. Babies vary in their needs, and different breastfed babies may be receiving very different types of breast milk. Some get milk that is richer than average. Others get milk that is much lighter.
And since babies can only drink so much before their stomachs are full, the fat content of milk is going to make a substantial difference in the calories they obtain from any given feeding session. Some babies will need more frequent feedings than other babies do, simply because their milk has fewer calories per serving.
Just as important, milk from the same mother can fluctuate in quality from day to day, and even from hour to hour (Khan et al 2013). So it’s possible that an infant feeding schedule that works pretty well one day might leave a baby dissatisfied on another.
Finally, it’s worth noting that the quality of breast milk changes during the course of a feed.
At the beginning of a feeding session, when the breast appears full, the milk that is released is relatively diluted and low in fat. Then, as the session continues, the breast takes on a softer, emptier appearance, and the milk changes.
The earlier “foremilk” gives way to a more concentrated, fattier “hindmilk” (Woolridge 1995), and you can see the difference in this photo.
The foremilk looks watery and bluish. The hindmilk — produced by the same breast, but later in the session — is ivory in color, and thicker.
Thus, if the adult terminates the breastfeeding session too soon, or forces a baby to switch breasts too soon, the baby will miss out on hindmilk (Woolridge and Fisher 1988).
Babies in this situation will fill up on a low calorie meal, and require more frequent feedings to obtain the energy they need.
In addition, they may be at higher risk for symptoms associated with consuming low quality milk. As breastfeeding expert Michael Woolridge (MD and PhD) has pointed out, low-fat milk can contribute to colic, vomiting, diarrhea, and flatulence in infants (Woolridge 1995).
What about formula-fed babies? Don’t they need us to impose restrictions — so they won’t overfeed?
You may have heard about research linking formula-feeding with rapid infant growth and an increased risk of childhood obesity. The links have been replicated in many studies, have prompted concern. Why are formula-fed babies more likely to become overweight?
One answer is that formula might be too energy-dense for some babies (Hester et al 2012). But it also appears that the delivery system — drinking from a bottle — is a contributing factor.
For example, in one study of 1250 American infants, researchers found that bottle-feeding in early infancy was associated with a tendency to eat everything on offer, regardless of whether the babies consumed formula or breast milk.
The more frequently babies drank from bottles during their first 6 months, the more likely they were to become big eaters later. As toddlers, they were more likely to completely drain any bottle or cup given to them (Li et al 2010).
A smaller study conducted in the United Kingdom reports similar results (Brown and Lee 2012).
It’s not clear what this means, but we know that infants can extract milk more quickly from a bottle than they can from a breast.
Perhaps the fast pace leads to consuming more during a feed, so babies become accustomed to taking in bigger meals.
Whatever the underlying cause, it invites the obvious question: Isn’t this a good reason to impose an infant feeding schedule? Aren’t bottle-fed babies better off if we restrict the timing of their meals?
The evidence suggests not.
For instance, experimental research indicates that babies are sensitive to internal cues of hunger and satiety. When allowed to feed on demand, both breastfed (Woolridge and Baum 1992) and formula-fed (Fomon et al 1975) infants adjust their intakes in response to the caloric content of their milk or formula.
And when researchers have tracked infant development over time, they haven’t found that feeding restrictions — including timed feeding schedules — reduce the risk of a child becoming overweight. On the contrary.
In one study, researchers found that scheduled feeding was a risk factor for rapid weight gain (Mihrshahi et al 2011). And — overall — research suggests that restrictive feeding is more likely than responsive feeding to lead to high weight gain (Gubbels et al 2011; DiSantis et al 2011b; Dinkevich et al 2015; Gross et 2014; Spill et al 2019).
Surprising? Perhaps it shouldn’t be. These observations are consistent with studies of older children.
It appears that intrusive, restrictive rules about eating may interfere with the development of self-regulation. They may actually increase a child’s tendency to engage in emotional overeating (Jani et al 2015; Rodgers et al 2013), and lead to excessive weight gain (Tylka et al 2015).
So researchers suspect that imposing restrictions — like a strict infant feeding schedule — are counterproductive for preventing obesity.
Kids might learn to ignore their own hunger cues, and eat in response to social cues (“it’s time!”) or emotions (“I’ve been denied — now it’s time to make up for that”). By allowing infants to initiate feedings, we may be helping them develop a more healthy relationship with food.
Other considerations: Do the effects of an infant schedule extend beyond matters of nutrition and energy regulation?
That’s an interesting question.
From birth, infants get distressed when their signals to nurse are ignored. And studies indicate brief, token acts of feeding can help newborns bounce back from stress.
Newborns cry less and show signs of reduced pain when they receive small amounts of milk, formula, or sucrose (see review by Shaw et al 2007; also Blass 1997a; Blass 1997b; Blass and Watt 1999; Barr et al 1999). The act of suckling is itself an analgesic (Blass and Watt 1999). And breastfeeding may be a painkiller and stress-reducer.
In one study, newborns subjected to a painful blood collection procedure cried much less if they were permitted to breastfeed (Gray et al 2002). They cried just 4% of time total procedure time, versus 43% for infants in a control group.
Babies who fed during the procedure also showed markedly reduced rates of grimacing (8% v. 50%), and their heart rates increased less (6 beats per minute v. 29 beats per minute).
Some of these differences may be attributable to the extra skin-to-skin contact that the breastfed babies got. But in a follow-up study, the researchers confirmed that breastfeeding was more soothing than skin-to-skin contact alone (Gray et al 2000; Gray et al 2002). And the authors noted that babies who were held without being fed tended to get frustrated, and required much more time to settle down (Gray et al 2002).
So what might happen to a baby who finds that her signals for quick comfort are routinely ignored?
While I’ve found no studies that bear directly on this question, responsive care has been linked with development of better stress regulation skills — even among highly irritable, “at risk” babies.
Moreover, a variety of studies suggest that sensitive, responsive parenting contributes to secure attachment relationships and better child outcomes.
And there is intriguing research regarding cognitive development.
In what is perhaps the largest study yet to investigate the effects of an infant feeding schedule, Maria Iacovou and Almudena Sevilla (2013) tracked the development of more than 10,000 British children — breastfed and bottle-fed alike — from birth to age 14.
There were no experimental manipulations. The researchers merely noted whether babies had been fed on schedule or “on demand”, and then followed their cognitive and academic progress. And the results? They favored feeding “on demand”.
At every age, kids who’d been subjected to an infant feeding schedule performed more poorly on standardized tests. Moreover, their IQs were, on average, 4.5 points lower.
Correlation doesn’t prove causation, of course, and this is just one study. It needs to be replicated.
But it’s interesting to note that the study’s results remained much the same even after researchers controlled for a variety of potential confounds, like parents’ education levels, economic factors, health, breastfeeding, maternal smoking, and the children’s exposure to negative discipline tactics.
There wasn’t any obvious reason for the difference between groups. Just the distinction between feeding on cue and following an infant feeding schedule.
Summing up: What do we really know?
As with most science, we still have a lot left to learn.
We don’t yet understand all the determinants of breast milk quality, or why the composition of breast milk changes over time.
We don’t yet understand all the causes of increased obesity risk in formula-fed and bottle-fed infants.
And it isn’t yet clear how much impact an infant feeding schedule might have over the long-term. In particular, we need more research on the possible effects an infant feeding schedule might have on stress regulation and cognitive development.
Meanwhile, what we do know is that human beings exhibit the characteristics of continual feeders, and it’s a sure bet that relatively frequent, “on demand” feedings have been the historic and evolutionary norm for our species.
It’s also clear that breast milk can vary substantially in fat composition and caloric density, so that babies will benefit from being able to schedule the timing of their own feeds.
And all babies — whether they consume breast milk or formula — experience fluctuations in their needs for fluids and energy. When we are responsive to their cues of hunger and thirst, we’re more likely to meet these needs.
How can you tell if a newborn is hungry? Find answers to this and other questions in my article, “The newborn infant feeding schedule: A review of the evidence against regimented feedings.”
In addition, you can read more about this topic in “Breastfeeding on demand: A cross-cultural perspective.” And for more information about the composition of breast milk, read this Parenting Science article.
Wondering if you can time your baby’s meals to optimize sleep at night? Check out my article, “Dream feeding: An evidence-based guide to helping babies sleep longer.”
What about solid foods? When and how should you introduce your baby to solids? This Parenting Science article will guide you through the process, and answer interesting questions about infant behavior, adding spices to foods, and more.
And are some other Parenting Science articles that might interest you:
- Baby sleep patterns for the science-minded
- The newborn senses: What can babies feel, see, hear, smell, and taste
- Stress in babies: How to keep babies calm, happy, and healthy
- Motor milestones: How do babies develop during the first two years?
References: The best infant feeding schedule
Agostoni C, Marangoni F, Grandi F, Lammardo AM, Giovannini M, Riva E, Galli C. 2003. Earlier smoking habits are associated with higher serum lipids and lower milk fat and polyunsaturated fatty acid content in the first 6 months of lactation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 57(11):1466-72.
Al-Tamer YY and Mahmood AA.2006. The influence of Iraqi mothers’ socioeconomic status on their milk-lipid content. Eur J Clin Nutr. 60(12):1400-5.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 2015. Caring for your baby and young child: Birth to age 5. 7th Edition. T. Altmann (ed). Bantam.
Argov-Argaman N, Mandel D, Lubetzky R, Hausman Kedem M, Cohen BC, Berkovitz Z, Reifen R. 2017. Human milk fatty acids composition is affected by maternal age. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 30(1):34-37.
Barr RG, Pantel MS, Young SN, Wright JH, Hendricks LA, Gravel R. 1999. The response of crying newborns to sucrose: is it a “sweetness” effect? Physiol. Behav 66: 409-417.
Bergmeier HJ, Skouteris H, Haycraft E, Haines J, Hooley M. 2015. Reported and observed controlling feeding practices predict child eating behavior after 12 months. J Nutr. 145(6):1311-6.
Blass EM. 1997a Milk-induced hypoanalgesia in human newborns. Pediatrics 99: 825-829.
Blass EM. 1997b. Infant formula quiets crying newborns. Journal of Dev Behavioral Pediatrics. 18:162-165.
Brown A and Lee M. 2012. Breastfeeding during the first year promotes satiety responsiveness in children aged 18-24 months. Pediatr Obes. 7(5):382-90.
Chen TL, Chen YY, Lin CL, Peng FS, Chien LY. 2020. Responsive Feeding, Infant Growth, and Postpartum Depressive Symptoms During 3 Months Postpartum. Nutrients. 12(6):1766.
Daly SE, DiRosso A, Owens RA and Hartmann PE. 1993. Degree of breast emptying explains fat content, but not fatty acid composition, of human milk. Exp Physiol 78: 741-755.
Daniel AI, Shama S, Ismail S, Bourdon C, Kiss A, Mwangome M, Bandsma RHJ, O’Connor DL. 2021. Maternal BMI is positively associated with human milk fat: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 113(4):1009-1022.
Dinkevich E, Leid L, Pryor K, Wei Y, Huberman H, Carnell S. 2015. Mothers’ feeding behaviors in infancy: Do they predict child weight trajectories? Obesity (Silver Spring). 23(12):2470-6.
Disantis KI, Collins BN, Fisher JO, and Davey A. 2011a. Do infants fed directly from the breast have improved appetite regulation and slower growth during early childhood compared with infants fed from a bottle? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 8:89.
Disantis KI, Hodges EA, Johnson SL, and Fisher JO. 2011b. The role of responsive feeding in overweight during infancy and toddlerhood: a systematic review. International Journal of Obesity 35: 480–492
Fomon SJ, Filmer, Jr., JA, Thomas LN, Anderson TA and Nelson SE. 1975. Influence of formula concentration on caloric intake and growth of normal infants. Acta Pediatrica Scandinavica 64: 172-181.
Fuglestad AJ, Demerath EW, Finsaas MC, Moore CJ, Georgieff MK, Carlson SM. 2017. Maternal executive function, infant feeding responsiveness and infant growth during the first 3 months. Pediatr Obes. 12 Suppl 1:102-110.
Gubbels JS, Thijs C, Stafleu A, van Buuren S, Kremers SP. 2011. Association of breast-feeding and feeding on demand with child weight status up to 4 years. Int J Pediatr Obes. 6(2-2):e515-22.
Gray L, Miller LW, Philipp BL, Blass EM. 2002. Breastfeeding is analgesic in healthy newborns. Pediatrics 109: 590-593.
Gray L, Watt L, Blass EM. Skin-to-skin contact is analgesic in healthy newborns. Pediatrics 105(1).
Gross RS, Mendelsohn AL, Fierman AH, Hauser NR, Messito MJ. 2014. Maternal infant feeding behaviors and disparities in early child obesity. Child Obes. 10(2):145-52.
Hausman Kedem M, Mandel D, Domani KA, Mimouni FB, Shay V, Marom R, Dollberg S, Herman L, Lubetzky R. 2013. The effect of advanced maternal age upon human milk fat content. Breastfeed Med. 8(1):116-9.
Hester SN, Hustead DS, Mackey AD, Singhal A, and Marriage BJ. 2012. Is the macronutrient intake of formula-fed infants greater than breast-fed infants in early infancy? Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism: 891201.
Iacovou M and Sevilla A. 2013. Infant feeding: the effects of scheduled vs. on-demand feeding on mothers’ wellbeing and children’s cognitive development. Eur J Public Health. 23(1):13-9.
Illingworth RS, Stone DHG, Jowett JH and Scott JF. 1952. Self-demand feeding in a maternity unit. Lancet 1: 683-687.
Innis SM. 2014. Impact of maternal diet on human milk composition and neurological development of infants. Am J Clin Nutr. 99(3):734S-41S.
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. 1991. Nutrition during lactation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jackson DA, Imong SM, Silpraset A, Preunglumpoo Ruckphaopunt S, Williams AF, Woolridge MW, Baum JD, and Amatayakul K. 1988. Circadian variation in fat concentration of breastmilk in rural Northern Thailand. British Journal of Nutrition 59: 365-371.
Jani R, Mallan KM, Daniels L.2015. Association between Australian-Indian mothers’ controlling feeding practices and children’s appetite traits. Appetite 84:188-95
Jenness 1974. Biosynthesis and composition of milk. Journal of investigative dermatology. 63: 109-118.
Kersting M and Dulon M. 2001. Assessment of breastfeeding promotion in hospitals and follow up survey of mother-infant pairs in Germany: The Su-Se study. Public Health Nutrition 5(4): 547-552.
Khan S, Hepworth AR, Prime DK, Lai CT, Trengove NJ, Hartmann PE. 2013. Variation in fat, lactose, and protein composition in breast milk over 24 hours: associations with infant feeding patterns. J Hum Lact. 29(1):81-9
Konner M. 2005. Hunter-gatherer infancy and childhood: The !Kung and others. In: Hunter-gatherer childhoods: Evolutionary, developmental and cultural perpectives. BS Hewlett and ME Lamb (eds). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Li R, Fein SB, Grummer-Strawn LM. 2010. Do infants fed from bottles lack self-regulation of milk intake compared with directly breastfed infants? Pediatrics. 125(6):e1386-93.
Mandel D, Lubetzky R, Dollberg S, Barak S, Mimouni FB. 2005. Fat and energy contents of expressed human breast milk in prolonged lactation. Pediatrics. 116(3):e432-5.
Mihrshahi S, Battistutta D, Magarey A, Daniels LA. 2011. Determinants of rapid weight gain during infancy: baseline results from the NOURISH randomised controlled trial. BMC Pediatr. 11:99.
Prentice AM and Prentice A. 1988. Energy costs of lactation. Annual review of nutrition 8: 63-79.
Prentice A, Prentice AM and Whitehead RG. 1981. Breast-milk concentrations of rural African women I. Short-term variations within individuals. British Journal of Nutrition 45: 483-494.
Rocquelin G, Tapsoba S, Dop MC, Mbemba F, Traissac P, Martin-Prével Y. 1998. Lipid content and essential fatty acid (EFA) composition of mature Congolese breast milk are influenced by mothers’ nutritional status: impact on infants’ EFA supply. Eur J Clin Nutr. 52(3):164-71
Rodgers RF, Paxton SJ, Massey R, Campbell KJ, Wertheim EH, Skouteris H, Gibbons K. 2013. Maternal feeding practices predict weight gain and obesogenic eating behaviors in young children: a prospective study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 10:24
Saxon TF, Gollapalli A, Mitchell MW, and Stanko S. 2002. Demand feeding or schedule feeding: infant growth from birth to 6 months. Journal of reproductive and infant psychology 20(2): 89-99.
Severn Nelson EA, Schiefenhoevel W, and Haimerl F. 2000. Child care practices in nonindustrial societies. Pediatrics 105: 75-79.
Shah PS, Aliwalas L, and Shah V. 2007. Breastfeeding or breast milk to alleviate procedural pain in neonates: a systematic review. Breastfeeding medicine 2:74-82.
Spill MK, Callahan EH, Shapiro MJ, Spahn JM, Wong YP, Benjamin-Neelon SE, Birch L, Black MM, Cook JT, Faith MS, Mennella JA, Casavale KO. 2019. Caregiver feeding practices and child weight outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 109(Suppl_7):990S-1002S.
Szabó E, Boehm G, Beermann C, Weyermann M, Brenner H, Rothenbacher D, Decsi T. 2010. Fatty acid profile comparisons in human milk sampled from the same mothers at the sixth week and the sixth month of lactation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 50(3):316-20.
Tilden CD and Oftedal OT. 1997. Milk composition reflects pattern of maternal care in prosimian primates. American Journal of Primatology 41: 195-211.
Tylka TL, Lumeng JC, Eneli IU. 2015. Maternal intuitive eating as a moderator of the association between concern about child weight and restrictive child feeding. Appetite 95:158-65.
Ventura AK, Inamdar LB, Mennella JA. 2015. Consistency in infants’ behavioural signalling of satiation during bottle-feeding. Pediatr Obes. 10(3):180-7.
Wojcik KY, Rechtman DJ, Lee ML, Montoya A, Medo ET. 2009. Macronutrient analysis of a nationwide sample of donor breast milk. J Am Diet Assoc. 109(1):137-40.
Woolridge MW. 1995. Baby-controlled breastfeeding: Biocultural implications. In: Breastfeeding: Biocultural perspectives. P. Stuart-Macadam and KA Dettwyler (eds). New York: Aldine deGruyter.
Woolridge MW and Baum JD. 1992. Infant appetite-control and the regulation of breast milk supply. Children’s hospital quarterly 3:133-119.
Woolridge MW and Fisher C. 1988. Colic, ‘Overfeeding,’ and Symptoms of Lactose Malabsorption in the Breast-Fed Baby: A Possible Artifact of Feed Management. Lancet 13: 382-384.
Note: Portions of this article, “Jettisoning the infant feeding schedule: Why babies are better off feeding on cue,” are taken from an earlier Parenting Science article, “The infant feeding schedule: Why babies benefit from feeding on demand.” The material here has been updated and substantially revised.
For more references pertaining to the infant feeding schedule, see my article on breastfeeding on demand.
Image credits for “The best infant feeding schedule”
image of infant breastfeeding by istock / Jomkwan
Content of “The best infant feeding schedule” last modified 5/2021