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?

pipoca Tue 04-Oct-11 15:06:30

Oops, I mean 15 weeks in that last sentence.

VelvetSnow Tue 04-Oct-11 15:07:18

15 months or 15 weeks?

VelvetSnow Tue 04-Oct-11 15:07:33

x post

AyeWhySWIM Tue 04-Oct-11 19:57:23

It's infuriating isn't it?! I know a million people will say it's none of our business but I'm in the same boat. I keep seeing all these pictures on fb of the poor little lad eating all sorts of totally inappropriate junk foods at 4mo.

It has nothing to do with my judgement of the parenting but everything to do with this poor little boy's health - he apparently also suffers from digestive and sleep problems yet these obviously haven't been linked to the early weaning and inappropriate diet. There's nothing we can do or say and it's none of our business how other people choose to raise their children.

pipoca Wed 05-Oct-11 14:56:42

Well, exactly, I can't say anything....at least I don't see how I can without her being mortally offended, and it's her second not her first so I assume she did the same with her DS. I just can't get over her starting solids so so early. I mean 15 weeks? That's not even the fabled 4 months people pretend to think is advised. And why? Why? I don't get this rush to start solids? What's the big hurry?

addictedtofrazzles Wed 05-Oct-11 21:26:59

Get over yourselves. It is none of your business. She is not going to damage her baby.

AyeWhySWIM Thu 06-Oct-11 03:49:24

That's exactly what I said, addicted. Daft scientists issuing these arbitrary guidelines eh? Best just to ignore them, us mummies know what's best for our babies. hmm

meditrina Thu 06-Oct-11 05:02:38

You say it's not her first child. How old are her previous?

The old four month guideline was usually written in the past as 16 weeks (not 17 as now), so being a few days short of that would have been considered wholly unexceptional only a few years ago (2004?). And 16 weeks was an increase on an earlier 12 week guideline.

The harmful effects of early weaning are one of those population based measures that do not translate easily into specific additional risk for an individual child. This abstract from 2001 describes it nicely. But you will see that when it looked at actual age of weaning in UK, it was (quoting a 1995 survey) 2% of babies are given solids by 4 weeks of age, 13% by 8 weeks, 56% by 3 months and 91% by 4 months.

Those babies - who, horribly early though that weaning seems to us now, actually benefitted from later weaning than the babies a cohort before them - are now teenagers and I do not think they are that much healthier as a whole group than those say in their 20s (which us when I think 12 weeks was last the norm).

The duration of breastfeeding after the start of mixed feeding is interesting. This area is not studied much, and effects on later health (when interacting with when solids were started, and what types of solids at what ages) as compared to babies on non-human milk, are not I think known. (None of the population studied in the linked report combined BFing with solids).

The increase noted in rates of some poorer health outcomes seem (from this study) to be significant only after 4 months (not specified whether they mean 16 or 17 weeks). And of course was greater the younger the introduction.

I'd be interested BTW in links to further studies in the last decade or so that might cover those two areas which this study doesn't.

What your friend is doing flouts current guidelines but doesn't IMO warrant huge shock or concern, so I do think you're overreacting. (Unless you come back to add that she's telling other mothers to ignore the guidelines, in which I'd agree she is being foolhardy).

savoycabbage Thu 06-Oct-11 05:05:18

I don't care if it's weeks or months I'm just 'shocked' that you are so shockedconfused You are being so over the top, smug and judgmental that I am not even sure that you are not joking.

I gave my dd baby rice at 13 weeks. She eats any food. Any. I have never found any food she has not eaten. And she eats good food made from scratch. Once she thought she didn't like beetroot but she changed her mind fifteen seconds later. She didn't know what mcdonalds et al was till she was five or that you could buy bread from shops. She is top of her class. She is beautiful. She is ill less than anyone I know. So the baby rice didn't do her that much harm.

coccyx Thu 06-Oct-11 05:25:38

Thought you were going to say 5 weeks old and on the baby rice!. Get over it. I have 2 older children and they had SHOCK HORROR baby rice and pureed fruit at around 14 weeks and they are fine.
Butt out

addictedtofrazzles Thu 06-Oct-11 07:27:19

And just to add that there is scientific evidence to suggest that omitting gluten based foods past 6/7 months can be a significant cause of ceolics. So for the over judgemental BLW'ing mums who choose to wait past 6 months whilst pitying other children who are weaned at 4 months, you are potentially putting your child 'at risk' too.

Worry about your own children.

Excellent post meditrina

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 08:53:13

I do think it's too early and totally unnecessary. In answer to someone's question her older child is 2, so the guidelines were the same then. I'm not smug, and maybe shock is too strong a word but I don't think a baby should be on solids before 6 months. This woman has not read all the studies, believe me, she's just doing it cos other people do. And baby rice of all things...it's total tasteless crap.
coccyc 2 children's hardly a scientific sample is it? What's that phrase, the plural of anecdote is not data? And, WHY did you wean at 14 weeks that's my basic question about all this. WHY. Why is she ignoring guidelines based on research about health and why is she BOTHERING when it's not even necessary?

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 08:53:47

and no it's none of my business, which is why I'm saying it here and not to her.

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 08:56:30

I suppose I'm also surprised (is that better than shocked?) that someone who bfed past a year wouldn't know the guidelines for solids are 6 months.

Well it's irrelevant what you think, isn't it?

The fact is that the guidelines have changed over the years. My DC are 19 and 16, and the guidelines when they were babies were that solids could be introduced from 16 weeks, I believe. Both of mine started weaning at around that time, successfully, supplemented with milk.

You sound terribly judgemental - especially describing your friend as 'a bit netmumsy in general'.

NatashaBee Thu 06-Oct-11 09:02:48

I've just seen a pic of my cousin's 12 week old baby on facebook. He is eating a chocolate digestive sad

Seems like nobody I know made it to 6 months before giving their baby food so I guess it must be tough to hold out? I think most people believe it will make their baby sleep better although based on the calorie content of milk vs food, I'm not sure that's true.

LilyBolero Thu 06-Oct-11 09:08:00

You do sound like you're wearing a great big pair of judgey pants!!! (sorry)

Fwiw, I have followed the guidelines for my 4 children;

Ds1 - guidelines were 'wean at 4 months (ie 16wks) , if you don't, you will miss the window of opportunity and your child will never eat solid food."

Dd - guidelines were 'wean from 16weeks, and certainly no later than 24wks, otherwise you will miss the window of opportunity'.

Ds2 - guidelines were 'WHO says 6 months, this is a guide, this applies especially to developing countries, so don't worry about weaning earlier'

Ds3 - guidelines were '6 months old'.

They're all ok, all survived, I think the lesson is to look at the guidelines, and look at your baby, and not stress quite so much. My parents weaned me at 9wks, on bonemeal broth....

LilyBolero Thu 06-Oct-11 09:09:54

(so just to add, ds1 was weaned at 16wks, but he was on a mixture of breast milk and bottle, dd was exclusively b/fed till about 2 wks shy of 6 months, ds2 ebf till 6 months, and ds3 ebf till 6 months. They all seem to have iron constitutions, but I certainly wouldn't have if I worried to death about ds1 who was weaned at 16 wks, as per the guidelines at the time).

AyeWhySWIM Thu 06-Oct-11 09:16:31

Thing is, we all know what 'a bit netmums-y' is though - the place is packed with 'happy mums = happy babies' and 'do what you feel is best'.

Like the op, none of this is actually keeping me up at night but I just don't understand why any mother would do anything other than what we currently know is the best for our babies. Of course guidelines are going to change as science develops. Just because a previous generation does something doesn't mean it's best practice. Chances are our pregnant mothers smoked and drank whilst carrying us too and look - we're fine aren't we?! How would you feel about seeing a pregnant mum smoking today? Would you feel a bit concerned for the unborn baby? Well I'd say I feel much the same seeing a 4mo baby doing his best with an ice cream knowing that it's not going to be doing his tummy much good.

I was put to bed on my tummy under heavy woolen blankets and am still here to tell the tale bur wouldn't you be a bit hmm if I told you that's what I was doing with my ds? What's the difference?

FlossieFromCrapstonVillas Thu 06-Oct-11 09:17:10

There are all sorts of things that piss me off in life but are nothing to do with me, vent here but really, it's your friend's child, nothing to do with you.

You'll get things wrong too, the World won't end.

horribledinners Thu 06-Oct-11 09:17:47

6 months is de rigeur for weaning these days. It was 3 months 20 years ago and 4 months 10 years ago.

So, most adults here will have had their first taste of solid food before 6 months. We're all alright, aren't we? hmm

canistartagainplease Thu 06-Oct-11 09:18:15

My pfb (17 now) was given baby rice at this age, breast fed for a year, and introduced to dairy atafter 6 months. She didnt have any pre exsisting problems, but i remember at the time everyone was telling me so many conflivting things, that I just plumped for that feeding regime.
If i was doing it now, I might be simerlarly worried, I guess every age has its feeding gurus.
I wish I had been kinder to my mum though, who had babies during the 50's and 60's, because even though I followed a lot of her ideas, I also disparaged a lot as old hat (when it really was just me trying to set myself apart from her-as you do).

I do think its important what you think though,because you make up the supportive background for your friend and as such can be a great possitive benefit. She has her ideas,you have yours and maybe you can both grow together. x

Maybe she BF past 1 year because she liked it, not because she was hip to all the latest guidance and scientific studies?

It's baby rice, not crack. I'm sure the baby will be fine.

gettingalifenow Thu 06-Oct-11 09:21:35

Bear in mind that you personally were probably on solids starting at 12 weeks and you're still here!

My own kids (eldest 20) were on solids from about 14 weeks - baby rice being the first item on the menu.

Its just not an issue - why would it make you sad?

winnybella Thu 06-Oct-11 09:23:10

Baby is given baby rice at almost 4 months? Shock horror hmm

Butt out and stop being so judgemental, fgs.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Thu 06-Oct-11 09:27:29

If you're a bit shocked at this then I'm guessing that a)this is your first child, and b)you're going to spend your entire parenting life being a 'bit shocked' by other people.

My older 2 were weaned at 4 months according to guidelines and my youngest was weaned at 6 months according to guidelines. I was weaned at a much earlier stage, my 70 year old mum earlier that I was, and my ancient granny even earlier. The point is that we all do what we think is best for our children, guidelines change, and we all tend to survive regardless.

Things do change, as do guidelines. We wouldn't dream of feeding a baby a bottle with brown sugar in it, as my grandmother wanted to do with DS1!

However, this is also about perspective - and a recognition that guidelines are just that - guides to what we should do. And just look at how often/quickly guidelines about food in general change - one minute something is good for you, next minute it's bad for you, then it's good for you again.

If the OP's friend was feeding her 15 day old baby on baby rice, then the OP would be quite right to be so 'shocked'. At 15 weeks? I don't think there is quite the same reason to get so huffy about it.

And I do think using the phrase 'a bit netmumsy' is very unpleasant. It's passing judgement about the OP's friend.

My darling mother had me on mash and gravy at 8 weeks and there's nowt wrong with me grin confused grin

toddlerama Thu 06-Oct-11 09:37:26

I weaned DD1 at 16 weeks because she leaned over and bit my sandwich.

DD2 wouldn't eat solids until almost 8 months which TBH was a bit worrying. We made a lot of juices...

They both eat now. Shocker.

BoffinMum Thu 06-Oct-11 09:39:29

It's not the end of the world, and a bit of baby rice ain't a big deal in risk terms. I would let it go.

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 10:00:30

I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm not huffy and I would never dream of saying anything to her about it, hence saying what I think on here. Obviously, no it's not crack and her baby won't die, but given what we know about early weaning, it's not ideal and it's TOTALLY UNNECESSARY!

Yes, I am judging, I judge that she is doing something that is NOT in the best interests of her baby and not necessary and I wonder why she would do that.

This baby is not my first, it's my second. I weaned DS onto purees at 5 and a half months as I was advised that as he was born early (36wks) he would need weaning earlier. I think that was probably nonsense looking back and he wasn't ready for it and it was a hassle and messy. I heard about BLW after about 3 weeks and decided to give it a go and found it much less stressful.

I don't care whether anyone spoonfeeds or BLW, but I am perplexed by why you would bother at 15 weeks and why you'd take the risk that it might do them harm. Yes, I know you're all fine after being weaned onto shanks of lamb at 3 days old, but it's not the point and it's not scientific, is it.

I just fail to see the rush to wean, I really really do. Why? Is it the excitement of a new stage? What's the hurry? If they're hungry, more milk.

I stand by my a bit netmumsy comment. I don't think it was unpleasant.

It was unpleasant, because it was a value judgement.

And all of this is your opinion based on you and your baby. Don't you think your friend is capable of making a decision about her baby and what is best for him/her?

jeee Thu 06-Oct-11 10:11:56

There's some sugglestion that it's unnecessary to wait until 6 months anyway: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12180052

bigkidsdidit Thu 06-Oct-11 10:13:16

BIWI on the advice of my (brand new qualified) GP I gave DS warm water with half a teaspoon of brown sugar at 15 weeks, twice. Sorted his constipation a treat grin

See!

Case proven grin

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 10:14:32

But it's clearly NOT the best for her baby, is it? As a perfectly healthy baby with no problems like reflux, it is clearly NOT best for her baby to be weaned at 15 weeks rather than wait, surely no one is disputing that? Given the faff of weaning and that it is NOT best to wean at 15 weeks WHY bother?

I think it's time to step away probably as I'm not managing to explain myself. I think only one poster has understood what I'm trying to say and has taken the netmums comment in the spirit it was meant. You're all correct that it is NONE of my business, and of course I won't say anything to her, hence why I posted here. We all judge all the time, I think she's wrong to wean but that's her business so I won't say anything but what's wrong with me thinking it to myself, I'm sure she judges me for some of the things I do.

Of course it's unpleasant to call someone a bit netmumsy, in the context of all that other judginess flying around in your OP.

nailak Thu 06-Oct-11 10:16:12

my youngest dc is 15mnths, still bf, doesnt take a bottle, however, he was interested in food before 6mnths, he used to cry when we sat down at meal times to eat etc, try and take the spoon out of my hands,

so i fed him purees for a couple of weeks, before switching to blw, he was around 5 mnths.

not every child is the same and suddenly as soon as they are 6mnths will be ready, it is a process that occurs slowly, some wil wait til later to eat and some sooner, it is a guideline.

and she may be comin from family pressure to wean, i was, my mum constantly told me to put baby rice in the bottle,as it was normal and in all other countries they do it and doesnt harm the kids, i just said yes and then ignored her,

Maisiethemorningsidecat Thu 06-Oct-11 10:16:29

It's not 'best' according to the current guidelines. As for why bother, well, it's her baby and she obviously can be bothered.

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 10:21:04

OK. Points taken. I shall retire and remove said judgypants. Each to their own. Just surprised me is all.

moogalicious Thu 06-Oct-11 10:21:32

'out of her tiny mind' hmm

The guidlines change all the time. In 5 years time we'll all be back to weaning at 4 months. My eldest was weaned at 4 months and she shock survived.

moogalicious Thu 06-Oct-11 10:21:56

guidelines

jeee Thu 06-Oct-11 10:23:36

Trying again.

There's some sugglestion that it's unnecessary to wait until 6 months anyway: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12180052

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 10:24:55

the guidelines don't change "all the time" they have been 6 months for many years. Anyway, enough said.

thinNigella Thu 06-Oct-11 10:30:31

Jeez. Get a life.

It. is. none. of. your. business.

wannaBe Thu 06-Oct-11 10:44:30

well, the guidelines are to exclusively bf until six months yet you say you didn't manage that with your ds? I'm shocked! Think of the damage you have potentially done to your child by introducing him to formula - how unnecessary! hmm

I of course don't think that, actually I couldn't give a stuff. But you see what the guidelines do? they make people think of them as the law when actually, they're not. Because often there are reasons why it's just not possible to stick to them.

And actually, any perceived "risk" to babies is extremely small if you look at the studies (all of them), and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that guidelines need revising back to between four/six months.

People are too hung up on the guidelines. All babies are different. There is no magic button that is pressed at 26 weeks that suddenly makes your baby ready for weaning. Babies have been considered ready for solids much earlier than that for centuries, and now suddenly someone makes it official that they shouldn't be ready before a certain date and all the signs of readiness are discounted? I don't think so.

People need to stop living their lives according to what the books say and start being more observant about their actual children..

Some babies really are ready for solids that young. Mine was, and it had nothing to do with needing more sleep - he slept through the night from nine weeks. But it had everything to do with him wanting food, being starving and refusing his milk yet still crying because he was hungry. I gave baby rice and we never looked back. But then the guidelines were sixteen weeks back then. But I would do it all over again.

Mind your own business op - you have no idea what you're talking about - the books don't hold the magic key you know.

LilyBolero Thu 06-Oct-11 11:00:18

pipoca, they haven't been 6 months for 'many many years' - as I said earlier, my 10yo ds was weaned at 16 weeks, in order to 'not miss the window of opportunity'.

I have the booklet in front of me from 2001 -

How will I know my baby is ready?

Babies are usually ready to start on solid food between 4 and 6 months.

What went along with that was the HV's advice that 'if you start at 4 months, start with tastes of baby rice and banana, and it is best to start at 4 months, as that is when they're developmentally ready'.

now I don't totally buy into this, my other 3 were all weaned at 6mths as the guidelines had headed that way, but even then the HVs were saying that at 6 months you needed to 'crack on with it, and not fanny about with babyrice'.

I don't dispute that it may be better to wait. But it's not something to be shocked about, especially when for generations the guidelines were earlier!

meditrina Thu 06-Oct-11 11:26:17

You have to interpret guidelines all the time.

FSID recommend you do not co-sleep, but many do. Canada has banned baby walkers in safety grounds, but use here is unexceptional. Medised has been withdrawn for infants, but parents still give it.

Your choices might lead to a poor outcome, and observational studies show the association, but they are not direct predictive cause and effect.

Deflatedballoonbelly Thu 06-Oct-11 11:35:36

I think giving tiny babies wallpaper paste 'so they will sleep longer' is disgusting.

But thats my opinion and I will NEVER say it to anyone. I will nod, smile and coo and think it without saying what i really want to, as its none of my business. but jeez, its gross!

OneHandFlapping Thu 06-Oct-11 11:37:08

While the current advice is 6months, this is not as cut and dried as you might think.

Here is a recent article suggesting that earlier weaning can be beneficial.

So I think you can take off your judgey pants here, OP.

catinboots Thu 06-Oct-11 11:41:11

With DS1 the guidelines were 4 months.

With DS" the guidelines were 6 months.

FWIW, the guidelines set by the WHO are mainly aimed at developing countries where water, food and feeding equipment is harder to sterilise.

wannaBe Thu 06-Oct-11 11:46:04

"the guidelines don't change "all the time" they have been 6 months for many years." They were four months when my ds was a baby and he will be nine in November. In fact I remember vividly hearing the article on the news saying that guidelines were changing to six months and thinking that there's no way I would have been able to wait until six months.

Personally I think that parents who rigidly stick to such guidelines and who would rather starve their babies in the name of the guidelines are far worse.

Bugsy2 Thu 06-Oct-11 11:50:57

It does seem quite shocking in this day & age, but most of us would have had far, far worse & lived to tell the tale. My HV notes from when I was a baby show I was being given rusk mushed with milk by 12 weeks & I had a spoonful of sugar in my formula milk!!!! Haven't got an allergy to my name.

pipoca Thu 06-Oct-11 11:53:37

OK, I apologise for any perceived smugness or rudeness in my OP. I apologise for the netmums comment but I still think 15 weeks when the guidelines are 26 weeks is waaaay too early when there are no medical reasons to do it. I admit I judged.
Wannabe, I see your point about bf but DS was born small and early in a traumatic birth and wouldn't latch, he was my first I was in a foreign country and he was given formula within the 1st 24 hrs in hospital. I tried mix feeding til 8 wks when it all sort of fell apart. I think that's different to merely waiting a bit longer to introduce solids.
Anyhoo, I am sorry for any offence caused and will leave this thread to remove the large judgypants wedged up my arse and think about smuggery as I'm not, I'm nice really but I seem to have come across as a right twat here. Sorry.

AyeWhySWIM Thu 06-Oct-11 11:53:56

I think a lot of people here are just on a wind up mission - a quick look round the weaning topic shows the very same posters advising people against early weaning and in fact, if I re posted under a different name saying I was thinking of early weaning I can pretty much guarantee I'd get no support whatsoever.

And if being 'a bit netmums-y' infers advising huns mums that they know their babby baby best then this thread is full of that, including you BecauseI'mWorthIt!

TheBride Thu 06-Oct-11 12:02:14

WHO are not always right. If they were, we'd all have AIDS by now.

Maybe they've got it wrong again. It's not like kids with multiple allergies are getting fewer in number.

Ah sorry OP, I don't think you're a twat smile

I just hate to see us mums judging one another all the time, I know it's natural but I think at least we should save it for stuff that's really harmful and not just unnecesssary.

coraltoes Thu 06-Oct-11 12:39:02

Well stone me, A lt of you have changed your tunes!! On other topics where it is mentioned ipassing that someone is weaning earlier than 6 months a lot of you freak out, ignore the real question and harp on about the dangers, and now, where someone is challenging early weaning you all jump down her throat!

I don't think i will ever fully grasp the bitchiness on this website. It does fascinate me though.

TheBride Thu 06-Oct-11 12:43:03

Maybe it's different people "freaking out" on this thread to the other one though.

MNers are not a cohesive mass and people tend to post on threads where they disagree with the OP more than when they agree

AyeWhySWIM

I didn't make any such connection. I was merely pointing out that using the phrase 'a bit netmumsy' was judgemental.

I don't go on netmums weaning threads so I have no idea what goes on there.

I am, though, aware that there is a whole cultural thing on MN that NM is somehow inferior and downmarket by comparison with 'us' over here - despite the fact that very many MNetters (including myself) also belong to NM.

And, for your information, I don't normally post on weaning threads, given that things are different now from when my DC were little. But this thread title popped up in Active Convos and piqued my interest.

Who's 'you all'?

No tune changing here

Maisiethemorningsidecat Thu 06-Oct-11 13:31:43

No tune changing here. Hardly bitchy to disagree with the OP when, by her own admission, she's being a 'twat' grin

<disclaimer: I don't think the OP is a twat at all, she sounds very nice smile>

DuelingFanjo Thu 06-Oct-11 13:56:17

I think it's awful to wean early but I tend to keep my opinion to myself when it comes to friends.

OneHandFlapping Thu 06-Oct-11 15:12:51

"I'm nice really but I seem to have come across as a right twat here. Sorry."

That made me laugh. I'm sure I have been guilty of the same, er under my old posting name.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Thu 06-Oct-11 17:32:08

Agree OneHand - I know I've been guilty of twattishness on MN, but I don't think I've ever been big enough to acknowledge my twattishness, so good on Pipoca grin

HumptyDumpty1 Thu 06-Oct-11 19:35:24

My bil and mrs weaned with baby rice at 3 weeks....their child now cannot put weight on and although is 20 months old weighs less than my 6 month old and is still in 6-9 clothes.

15 weeks isn't too bad is it?

addictedtofrazzles Thu 06-Oct-11 20:14:08

Humpty - how do you know that the poor growth is due to baby rice!!!??? Pretty unlikely although 3 weeks sounds a bit bonkers!

HumptyDumpty1 Thu 06-Oct-11 22:18:13

I don't know that it is due to baby rice. I would hazard a guess though that the poor growth is due to digestive system damage giving baby rice at 3 weeks old.

Not saying it's the babyrice just the fact she was given anything at 3 weeks

Maisiethemorningsidecat Fri 07-Oct-11 08:16:34

It could be anything though. What are the paediatricians saying? Are they linking it to the baby rice?

grin @ pipoca

TitaniaP Fri 07-Oct-11 11:01:48

Well I've just come back from the hospital where the paediatrician has told me to early wean (with baby rice) to encourage my DS to gain weight. I wanted to wait to 6 months but can't ignore the fact that my DS is very small. Where does that sit with all the advice? Will I be similarly judged be other friends waiting until 6 months?

Bugsy2 Fri 07-Oct-11 11:08:50

So hard to know TitaniaP. Baby rice contains fewer calories & has almost no nutritional content compared to breast milk or formula. Doesn't seem to make alot of sense. Its not for me to question the wisdom of a paediatrician but it does seem weird advice to me & I don't have a big issue at all with early weaning - given the guidance at the time mine were little was 3 months.

TitaniaP Fri 07-Oct-11 11:13:04

Sorry slight thread hijack there. My point was that when peads are recommending early weaning in some cases its hardly surprising that Mums are confused. I certainly am! My DS is 16wks btw.

Maisiethemorningsidecat Fri 07-Oct-11 11:13:44

You mix baby rice with breast milk or formula, so not no nutritional content

bigkidsdidit Fri 07-Oct-11 11:37:02

I'm not a doctor but I would imagine that a) it is meant o be in addition to milk not in place of - ie feeding after milk and b) the earlier you start weaning the earlier you get to eg avocado which is calorie dense. My friend has been advised to wean her prem twins at 16 weeks too.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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 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 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 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.

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 Sat 08-Oct-11 09:42:39

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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??

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)

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