Advanced search

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 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'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.

BecauseImWorthIt Thu 06-Oct-11 09:00:51

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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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

dreamingbohemian Thu 06-Oct-11 09:18:18

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?

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