Please remind me of the arguements against early weaning

[Blondeinlondon]

Hello
Now I know there are a load of reasons for not weaning until 6 mths but I can't remember them

I am seeing a friend next week who has just started weaning at 16 weeks
Whilst I will not be telling her what to do as it's none of my business I'd like to be ready with the reasons against if she asks
Cheers!

[Tinker]

Gut not ready = increased risk of allergies in later life. Check out Kellymom site - good for this stuff.

[matnanplus]

ditto Tinker also baby is often not adequetly orally developed to deal with anything more solid than milk.

[NotQuiteCockney]

The safest early weaning foods are lower calorie than milk, so don't help with weight gain.

Also, it's a lot of work, for no very good reason.

[jane313]

If you are doing it for weight gain or sleeping through the night this probably won't happen and you've wasted your time.

Could contribute to excema and/or ibs

Some babies get used to purees and then going to lumpy food is harder. Better just start with finger food and lumps. (Well thats what I hope if I ever get to do weaning again).

Someone posted this before, it looks quite interesting

weaning

[ThomCat]

I hadn't bothered with finding out just yet as I'm a little way off having to think about it.
When I first heard that the maternity laws now meant i had 6 months off I was chuffed as it meant my baby would be weaned andf eed by me before I went back to work. How irritating that as teh maternity law changed so did the weaning guides so if I do take heed baby will just be going onto solids as I go ack to work

[hotmama1]

World Health Guidelines and DoH are BF until 6 months. Until 4 monthsish, babies stomachs do not produce the enzyme amylase which breaks down starch - so shouldn't start before then.

Should wait until babies can sit up, stop the tongue sticking out reflex thingy when something is put in their mouths etc. More chance that babies will develop eczema and/or allergies if weaned earlier. Also, if wean later often don't have to do the baby rice mush stage etc - which is a pain.

However, HVs still advise weaning from 4 months (mine did) and for some reason it is seen as a good thing by competitive mums to wean babies early like it is a sign of developement or whatever.

My dd is nearly 14 months, wasn't bf for 6 months but I didn't wean until she was 24 weeks - and she eats well - I like to think because I'm relaxed about what she eats and didn't/don't force it down her.

[Blondeinlondon]

Thanks all

[ThomCat]

But it was okay to wean at 4 months a few years ago! It'll change again next year!

[NotQuiteCockney]

It used to be 4-6 months. But health visitors kept saying 4 months to people.

And, in lots of cultures, it has been 6 months for ages.

[hotmama1]

My HV was 'quite old' has just retired so won't be around for dd2. Didn't the advice used to be to put cereal in milk from a week old - if this is where they come from no wonder the advice is out of date!

[hunkermunker]

Baby food manufacturers have a lot to do with the weaning age being four months. As did the government - they weren't going to receommend an age that would've shown up their mat leave policy as shite.

I wrote to my MP about this - it's all very well giving paid mat leave of 6m but in reality a lot of women have their babies late and take a couple or more weeks off before the birth, so they end up either being unpaid or struggle with juggling everything (with DS, I was unpaid for a month or so and juggled everything till I regularly had tears dripping off my chin ). My MP said that the government gives women a year off (which they do, but it's easy for them not to notice that six months of it is unpaid, it seems!).

Years ago, weaning wasn't done till eight or nine months, or even a year.

[ThomCat]

Oh okay, i was told 4 months so that's what I did. Oh well

[zebratwizzler]

Because it absolutely isn't necessary and it might do them harm.
That's about the gist of it, really. Better safe than sorry.

[bubbles2904]

me too thomcat, my dd1 was weaned just before 4 months

[oliveoil]

I was told between 4 - 6 months and I weaned both my girls at 4 months, no problems at all.

They were both huge babies however and I know I will get shouted down saying it doesn't make a difference etc etc but it did, both more settled and slept better as they were HUNGRY.

We are not talking a sunday lunch, just the odd teaspooon of baby rice then bits of pureed fruits etc.

[hunkermunker]

I didn't wean DS till he was 6mo, he hardly ate anything till he was 8mo and he went through an unsettled phase when he was about 4mo. He was hungry too, so I bfed him more often and he settled again after a few days.

But had I given him food then, he may well have settled as well and I might have thought it was to do with the food. But I cannot see how a couple of bits of fruit/veg puree and a few spoons of baby rice make a difference - they don't have the calories in them.

[HRHQoQ]

oh well you were better behaved than me olive - I weaned DS1 at 4 months (as advised). With DS2 I knew what the advice was (for 6 months) but weaned him at 4 anyhow - and at 6 months he was eating sunday lunches - I'm paying for it now though.........

2 weeks ago we had a roast Chicken and he ate more than DH did !

[hunkermunker]

LOL QoQ! DS often eats more than I do at 19mo...

[Miaou]

I've just got to that point hunker - ds has gone back to two night feeds and has upped the number of feeds he takes during the day - but I am going to hold off until he is sitting up and hopefully not pushing things out of his mouth with his tongue (giving him calpol is incredibly difficult, baby rice is a battle I don't want yet!). He is still gaining weight fine and is happy enough.

[HRHQoQ]

oh he always eats more than me - I'm not a huge eater - but he had a REALLY big serving of roast potatoes, veg and chicken, then was asking for "more cake" (when we told him it was chicken then changed to "more chick". Gave him some more (there was supposed to be some left over to make a pie/chicken sandwiches with), wanted more - so had half of DH's - and he's a BIG eater my DH LOL.

[tatt]

because you could cause them a lot of pain. I know there will be people who are cross about that - and I hope they get away with it. However some babies don't and you don't know if yours will be one of them so its russian roulette.

I am so vehement about this because I know a family who thought that because their baby was big at birth, hungry and they had no family history of allergy they could safely wean early. I don't want to list exactly what the poor thing has been through but they have seen a lot of doctors. They don't get a lot of sleep and don't know if the baby will have problems for life.

I am amazed by people who fuss like mad over MMR and have taken this far bigger risk. Of course this baby does now have to be careful about vaccination because it isn't known if his dmaged gut will heal.

[hunkermunker]

It's hard, Miaou - but no harder, IMO and IME, than pap-spooning. After all, no guarantee that he'd sleep any better, a fair chance it wouldn't make much difference and easier to just latch on again. MUCH easier to wait till they can sit up and feed themselves too

[Miaou]

exactement, hunker. I'm just intrinsically lazy

[hunkermunker]

Me too, Miaou, me too