Friend started 15 wk old on baby rice. I'm a bit shocked.

(101 Posts)
pipoca Tue 04-Oct-11 15:05:41

I have a 20 week old DD who is ebf (much to my surprise after failing miserably to bf DS). She's doing great and will be on milk alone til 6 months and then hope to do BLW again as it was great with DS (after a false start with purees before I knew about BLW)

A friend of mine has just started her 15 wk old on baby rice...she "loved it" apparently hmm. Hopes it will help her sleep at night hmm. Don't know her well enough to tell her she's out of her tiny mind explain the reasons for waiting til 6 months to wean so feel a bit sad about the whole thing in general. She's a bit netmumsy in general so in a way I'm not surprised but she bfed her DS to 13 months and is bfing this one so I'm a bit shocked, maybe unreasonably. Just thought if you knew about the benefits of bf and bfed to a yr you'd know not to wean so early?? AIBU?

I can't even begin to fathom why she's bothering to faff about with baby rice at 15 months, never mind the health aspects. Why do people do it?

forevergreek Wed 20-Mar-13 13:31:12

I agree with op

Also I don't understand how many on here are saying ' I weaned at xyz weeks and they are fine'. How old are your children? I'm assuming most are still under 18, how do you know at all that thy are fine? They could get to 25/35 and suffer be coeliac/ new allergies/ prone to more things than others. You have no idea

I'm also not sure about the ' everyone used to wean early'. My grandmother was weaned at 8 months ( born during ww2) and mother at 6 months. Both their mothers explanations were they had a few children close in age, being able to just bf/ bottle feed youngest was the easiest option.

I cant see how poor during the war on rations for example would think it a good idea to have to find more food to feed another mouth when they could just bf for free ( I think under ones didn't even have a proper ration book).

We were all weaned at 6 months ( 14 years between oldest and youngest), and so were our children. it's never been under 4 months as guidelines as others have mentioned.

Out of close friends I also don't know anyone to have weaned early ( give or take a week)

CharlieMumma Sat 16-Mar-13 17:18:40

Everyone seems to quick to tell the op to butt out of other people business but not many of u seem to be reading what op is actually asking. Yes in the past people weaned at 8wks, 12wks etc - the ops point was why does her friend and others on here I guess NOT follow CURRENT guidlelines..... Anyone??

jave Sat 16-Mar-13 17:07:58

guidelines are just that, guidelines. mothers know their own children and what's best for them. my daughter had reflux and we were advised to begin weaning at 17 Weeks to help keep her milk down. I think it depends on what school of thought you come from. I have read many articles in various journals, for and against weaning at 17 Weeks. I think these sights do a great deal of good and give great advice, however I also feel that they are a platform for certain mothers to say how wonderful they are and judge others. I follow my babies lead as she is the best guideline for me to go by. I read the guidelines and take what I need from them. I think its sad that some mothers are so keyed up on 'guidelines' that instinct has gone out of the window. how did mothers ever cope without the internet and guidelines that are rammed down our throats...........oh that's right good old instinct which, may I add is something the government can't issue guidelines on. I'm sure if they did there would be plenty of mothers judging that too! get a grip and follow your childs lead. I judge guideline mothers for not thinking outside of the box that we are confined to as mothers by varying professionals.

eddie864 Thu 07-Mar-13 11:12:31

I gotta say this is a bit strange. If I was doing something with my baby that other parents were a bit unhappy about I'd appreciate a comment and at least discuss it. The guidelines are a one size fits all thing and obviously they don't suit every baby. For nervous new parents guidelines are really reassurance I think and research is ongoing that makes those guidelines the best fit as our knowledge advances.

My 14 week old boy is getting the odd finger taste of most things and he is liking them. He particular likes a lick of yoghurt off the end of a clean finger! I don't think he is hungry enough to need weaning right now although he has become a right podge. He's having about 6 feeds of about 7ozs of normal baby formula which looks about right according to the formula box table.

So I get that baby rice will make a baby fuller and potentially reduce the amount of milk overall it takes to make him full. What do we think of the hungrier baby milk? Is it not just regular milk with more fillers (making it similar in action to the baby rice)?

Allboxedin Sat 08-Oct-11 16:32:23

Probably been sad up thread but as gettngalife says you were probably on it at that age. Our parents weaned us all a lot earlier than we do now AND I gaurantee you the 'perfect age to wean' wll change in a few years time.
All babes are different and IMO not all will be ready at 5 months but a good few might be.
I started a bit of baby rice at 17 weeks, I asked the opinion of my dad (a former Dr) and my mum who had 5 of us children and they both agreed it couldn't do any harm.
Most mums have some common sense, so even if you don't agree, trust her own judgement with her own baby.

4madboys Sat 08-Oct-11 16:21:49

except that weaning earlier is actually a relatively recent phenomena, up until the 1950's and later babies were generally not weaned until well over 6mths, often not till 9mths.

and you may not see ill effects yet, but there is a wealth of evidence that points to early weaning as a contributing factor in the increase in ibs, crones disease etc in adults.

15 wks is too early, some babies still have weak head control at that age, they certainly cant sit up and pretty much all babies will still have tongue thrust reflex, a fairly sure sign they arent ready to be weaned.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Sat 08-Oct-11 15:16:11

And I said 'relatively recently' that it was changed to '6 months and not earlier'. 2002 in my book is relatively recently given that we're talking about previous generations who weaned earlier.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Sat 08-Oct-11 15:13:49

Really? I've got a 14 year old and we all weaned before 6 months as per the guidance in 1997. No-one suffering any ill effects.

4madboys Sat 08-Oct-11 09:45:59

i was talking to some mums from old ante natal group, we all have 12 yr olds and have all gone on to have one or more children. out of a group of 8 of us, only one weaned before 6mths, the rest of us all waited till 6mths, have to say i dont personally know very many people who have weaned before 6mths.

the one that did was influenced by relatives and even tho she weaned before 6mths her child was about 5mths when she started, so certainly not 15wks, got they are a tiny baby at 15 wks,, well mine werent tiny! but they just dont have the upper body control etc, still have tongue thrust, i personally cannot imagine in anyway how a baby of that age is ready for weaning, purely from a physical development pov.

4madboys Sat 08-Oct-11 09:42:39

wondering why you could be competitve about doing something that could potentially harm your baby? confused

RitaMorgan Fri 07-Oct-11 21:21:25

Yep, was 4-6 months since 1994.

Some people are stupid though, and competitive about getting their baby on solids as soon as possible.

4madboys Fri 07-Oct-11 21:11:56

its NOT recent, that has already been said on the thread, it was 4-6mths, with 4mths being the absolute earliest, my eldest is 12yr and he was weaned at 6mths as the guidlines said 4-6mths and research showed that the best evidence said to wait till 6mths.

i think it changed in 2002 to 6mths and before that it was 4-6mths.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Fri 07-Oct-11 19:48:49

The thing is, when I weaned my first 2 at 16 weeks, the guidelines at that time advised that they did - and DC1 was certainly very happy to have something more than breastmilk. DD wasn't interested, so we left it until she was. Don't forget, it's only relatively recently that the 6 month and not earlier guideline was introduced.

4madboys Fri 07-Oct-11 18:45:43

yes same here, but if there tummy is full from rice, which takes longer to digest, even if you offer milk first then food and then milk, they will most probably take less milk that they would have done without the rice.

at 15wks they dont need it.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Fri 07-Oct-11 17:48:47

It kind of depends on the baby and how you do it I suppose. With mine (when I was weaning) I started off with a breastfeed, followed by baby rice or whatever, then more milk. It wasn't an either/or, if that makes any sense?!

4madboys Fri 07-Oct-11 16:29:50

because the baby would eat tiny amounts of it and be full, so they would be having LESS formula/breast milk than they would if they just had the milk! therefore less calories.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Fri 07-Oct-11 14:52:49

4madboys - you mix baby rice with formula or breast milk, so I don't see how that would mean less calories.

Pipoca - don't worry. We've all said and done things on here that make us sound smug, judgey or both - you've at least had the cojones to admit to it, which makes you a bigger woman that I am grin

pipoca Fri 07-Oct-11 14:48:31

Just to be clear, I HAVE not and WiLL not say anything to my friend (I say friend, I don't know her all that well, she's in my circle of friends IYSWIM). It isn't my business, I was just surprised she was doing it as my understanding is 15 weeks is way too early. That's all. OP was badly expressed and came across as smug and judgy, which it wasn't meant to.

4madboys Fri 07-Oct-11 13:11:41

the guidlines has been 6mths for ages and 4-6mths before that, all of mine were weaned at 6mths, they are 12, 9,6 3 and 10mths, i waited as i did my research and with a history of astham, eczema and hayfever in the family it seemed best to wait and yes they bfed a lot but they were fine waiting till 6mths smile

re the weaning early onto baby rice, there is the problem that it doesnt have many calories compared to milk, but also it WILL fill the baby up, their tummies are tiny and it will stay in the tummy for longer and so they may end up having less milk because of it, which would mean even less calories and not be good for a baby that is slow to gain weight?

also re early weaning, there is more research being done that is thinkign the link to chrons and irritable bowel etc that we are getting in adults ie people in 20-30's and older is maybe due to early weaning.

its not a risk i would take, but i dont really care what other people do grin and i wouldnt tell anyone off etc, i might mention my experience and my reasons for doing what i did if the ASKED but other otherwise i would keep my mouth shut.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Fri 07-Oct-11 12:47:49

I think the inference that guidelines change all the time was in relation to health guidelines generally. It also means that for 20 years (longer in fact, because babies were generally weaned earlier prior to that) babies have been weaned around 16 weeks. We're not exactly seeing generations of adults with gastro problems as a result of this, which is why there is not much hand-wringing at the OP.

bigkidsdidit Fri 07-Oct-11 12:09:04

I don't know - I'm not necessarily advocating it, just postulating that's why paediatricians advise it

Bugsy2 Fri 07-Oct-11 11:59:20

sorry, just for the record, breast milk comes out the other end of babies as curdled breast milk - not out of the boob, which is how it sounds in my post! blush

Bugsy2 Fri 07-Oct-11 11:57:54

but bigkid, just because you give stuff to babies earlier doesn't actually mean they can digest it. We all know that even breast milk comes out initially as curdled breastmilk & that babies have to slowly develop/produce all the digestive enzymes necessary for them to get to a normal diet. I'm not a doctor or nutritionalist either, but I can't help feeling that early weening in itself wouldn't necesarily lead to increased weight gain. It seems flawed logic to me. The most nutritionally dense product a baby can eat is their own mothers milk, or if that is not available formula. I wonder if weaning early is about stretching their tummies or something like that. I feel like I am missing something.

FeelMyWraith Fri 07-Oct-11 11:50:43

Humpty, my niece was weaned v early with baby rice. She's nearly 4 now and weighs the same as her 18mo sister. She was in hospital a lot in the weeks following early weaning with a bleeding gut and has ongoing gastrointestinal problems. She really struggles to gain weight and her stomach won't recover fully though she's much better than she was.

Her reaction isn't common but early weaning had a detrimental effect on her health.

FeelMyWraith Fri 07-Oct-11 11:47:45

The guidelines don't change all the time. They were changed to 6 months in 2003 and were 4-6 months before this for twenty years. That's beween 4 and 6 months, not 16 weeks. So they've changed twice in nearly 30 years and from 4-6 months to 6 months. It's hardly a massive leap.

And the World Health Organisation guidelines are aimed at the world, hence why the NHS agrees with them. Nothing at all to do with developing countries and clean water. It's about gut maturation and biology which is the same for all babies. Around 6 months their guts mature.

Just for the record, thought I'd correct some of the oft spouted inaccuracies around weaning.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now