weaning before 17 weeks

(20 Posts)
JRmumma Mon 30-Dec-13 21:57:35

Ive just noticed on facebook that someone i know has given her 14 week old porridge.

The baby is in full health and was full term. This is not right is it?

I wouldn't do it but others dont bother about guidelines

TondelayoSchwarzkopf Mon 30-Dec-13 21:59:18

No, 17 weeks is the earliest based on the available evidence for a full term baby. Is the baby a preemie as sometimes they are advised to wean earlier?

PenguinsDontEatStollen Mon 30-Dec-13 22:00:44

No, it isn't right and can potentially cause health problems. But if she's doing it, she probably won't listen. 17 weeks is the earliest time for standard weaning.

Cascumpec Mon 30-Dec-13 22:04:07

I started mine on thin baby rice at 12 weeks. He was hungry. It did him no harm.

lilyaldrin Mon 30-Dec-13 22:08:20

It's a stupid thing to do, I'm not sure why people are so keen to risk their baby's health but there are a lot of stupid people in the world!

vichill Mon 30-Dec-13 22:13:18

No it's not right. I have experienced passive aggressive pressure from parents and in laws to introduce foods since 8 weeks. All armed with a loads of meaningless anecdotal evidence that it's ok. Apparently I had a meat pie at 3 months and did ok (conveniently forgetting i was obese as a teenager). Early weaners in the baby group I attend believe solids = sleeping through and early weaning is just the done thing in our area. They get quite umpty when the Hv says its best to wait.

JRmumma Mon 30-Dec-13 23:01:08

Tond its a full term baby.

I know that weaning at 6m or 26w is relatively recent advice but i was shocked at 14 weeks!

I know what you mean about pressure though, everyone seems to assume id start weaning mine at 17 weeks and are surprised that in planning on waiting till 6m ish. You get loads of 'mine were all weaned at x and it did them no harm' responses but i just smile at them.

I just don't see the point of trying to get a baby to eat solids before they are ready to and i refuse to believe that a 14wk old will be ready.

jane1995 Tue 31-Dec-13 21:41:18

the reason for 17 weeks min is because babies digestive systems arent fully developed untill then, I know a woman giving her baby chocolate and allsorts at 6 weeks old, dont know why people dont listen to the guidelines, their their to help after all!

Bankholidaybaby Tue 31-Dec-13 22:04:52

I have a prem baby and called Bliss for weaning advice today. They do advise early weaning if the baby is showing signs of readiness, but not before 20 weeks actual age. 17 weeks is the bare minimum for term babies and my understanding is that earlier solids can cause food allergies/intolerances. I also read today that giving grains, including baby rice, is inadvisable until 12 months because babies don't produce salivary amylase until they are much older than weaning age.

Bankholidaybaby Tue 31-Dec-13 22:06:17

And amylase is needed for the body to digest grains.

lilyaldrin Tue 31-Dec-13 22:09:16

Weaning before 17 weeks also increases the risk of infections, and long term gut/digestive problems like IBS and coeliacs.

littlelouiesmum Thu 09-Jan-14 12:58:53

GUIDELINES say a baby should be weaned no earlier than six months... but guidelines also say that a baby should sleep in the same room as it's parents until 6 months old but how many people actually follow that guideline?.. my hv said weaning at 6 months is only a guideline because every baby is different and I firmly believe this! My mother weaned me at THREE months and I am 100% healthy. I don't think any mother should be judged on their choices until you know all of the facts. My son is 15 weeks, he was taking 8 bottles of 8 oz a day and sometimes still wanted more. He sleeps through the night so that is not a problem but the constant hunger was a worry. The hv came round as I requested a visit and together we tried him with a small amount of baby cereal which he loved, he didn't push any of it out, he sits up extremely well for his age and he now has the cereal with his second bottle of the day, everyday. I followed professional advice and my baby is 100% ready for the cereal. Now if some of you are 'disgusted' and think I'm a bad mum then take it up with my hv and also come and take a look at my baby and try telling me he's not ready.

PenguinsDontEatKale Thu 09-Jan-14 13:06:30

Guidelines say a baby should be weaned at six months. They also say that it is potentially dangerous to wean before 17 weeks.

That is a properly research backed recommendation. I was weaned at 3 months too and I am healthy. But I am a sample of one. At a population level, weaning at three months is not safe.

Also, there are plenty of people who follow the six month room sharing recommendation. Plenty who don't, but again it is a research backed recommendation and it is the safest way for a baby to sleep.

People make decisions including other factors, but at a purely safety level, both those are good and valid advice.

littlelouiesmum Thu 09-Jan-14 13:19:58

I totally understand why the guidelines are in place and I had all intentions of following the guidelines myself I just think people shouldn't be so quick to judge. Guidelines say alcohol is bad for you, billions of people still drink it....

Chunderella Sat 11-Jan-14 10:56:56

Actually, guidelines say that moderate alcohol consumption is fine, and there's some research to suggest that a small amount of the right type of alcohol may be better for you than none at all. Also, I suspect the majority of people do keep the baby in with them for at least 6 months!

It isn't about judging littlelouie because ultimately none of us know why you or this mother did what they did. However, it is without question that weaning before 17 weeks increases the risk of various digestive problems. It doesn't make them inevitable, luckily, it just makes them more likely. I can certainly see why you would follow professional advice, and as a parent you absolutely have the right to trust your HV. Unfortunately, some of them are crap. Your HV, if she was going to advise you to do the opposite of what NHS guidelines recommend, should also have made you aware of the risks.

Bankholidaybaby Sat 11-Jan-14 14:03:03

Moreover, when you drink alcohol, you risk your own wellbeing; when you wean early, you risk that of your baby. S/he depends on you to make good choices based on the currently available information, which right now says to wait.

bella411 Wed 15-Jan-14 22:21:55

A family member has been weaning her 3mo for a while!! Up to her what she does, though I don't think I would have been giving my 3mo cheesey puffs and fairy cakes at a party!

I know some babies do need weaning early, on medical even unfulfilled reasons. But for those that dont, I dont see the rush in wanting to wean or wanting baby to grow up. personally, it was a lot easier when my dd was just on milk and going out and about.

Pobblewhohasnotoes Fri 17-Jan-14 16:36:05

I don't get the rush to wean, I don't know why people are in a rush for babies to grow up. It's so much easier to just give them milk rather than faffing around with food.

If they're hungry, give them more milk. Babies go through growth spurts, it doesn't mean they need food. Plus, milk contains the calories, not food.

Pobblewhohasnotoes Fri 17-Jan-14 16:36:55

And I say this as a mum whose DS still woke until he was one years for a feed every night, regardless of how much food he ate during the day.

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