to think this is rediculously early weaning?

[Fryib]

Someone I know has been telling people that she has started weaning her baby boy at the age of 2months!

He wad a big baby, 11pounds and some ounces, and has continued to grown so is now about 14 pounds.

She has been complaining he wasn't sleeping through the night and getting through 9oz bottles every few hours so someone suggested to give him baby rice.

This 2 month old is now having rusk for breakfast and milk, plus baby food for tea and finally a scoop of rice in his bedtime bottle.

Aibu to think this is damaging and far to early. She said she's going to start giving him lunches next week to.

Or am I a bit out of touch, my youngest is 16 months.

moretramp, actually sleeping through by 14 weeks is pretty normal. Not saying that cos I had particularly good babies, but I don't think it's the norm to be feeding every 2 hours at 14 weeks.
Not saying it's wrong, your choice obviously. But wouldn't blame another mum to choose weaning over 2 hourly feeds.

Amazing innit?

So that's big babies who need early weaning and small babies. And ones that wake up and ones that are hungry. Blimey.

You don't?

Maybe it is not the cultural norm but certainly it is the physiological norm for babies to feed regularly through the night.
I know which one I'd rather follow, thanks.

Sleeping through at 14 weeks is as normal as waking 2 hourly at 14 weeks. There's a massive spectrum of normal. But the readiness of a child's guts for solids is nothing to do with their sleep habits or weight. The gut matures and is ready around 6 months. Some babies might be slightly earlier but the guidelines are pretty clear that you should NOT consider weaning before 17 weeks unless under medical supervision.

Physiologically speaking it's actually a good thing for them to wake regularly. It's a useful survival mechanism.

And there's a significant body of evidence to suggest that weaning has no good effect on sleep, in fact it's often found to have a negative effect.

Children of around 4 months also go through a massive developmental spurt and sleep regression that is difficult admittedly but not an indication of a mature gut.

Is it me or are babies being born heavier nowadays?!!
Personally, I think that every baby is different and guidelines are just that, guidelines. Not rules! I have a baby book somewhere which states that in days gone by babies were given puréed veg at a week and meat at a month as a matter of course! In those days, those were the guidelines!
It makes me annoyed that life is soo governed by dates and rules.
Totally unrelated comparison I know but I sell cheese. We have to throw away perfectly good unripe cheese because it's out of date!
Maybe if more people in general used their common sense and ignored the guidelines we would all be better off!

agree with showaddy. the spectrum of normal varies so greatly. i wouldn't consider a baby who was waking two hourly at 4 or 5 months anything other than normal.

Its no big deal anyway, feeding DS at night.
My babies have to learn self-service early on
I just sleep topless and roll over with him every now and then.

saggy. do you ever ask yourself why guidelines exist. necessity being the mother of invention and all that? you know, there might actually be a reason for them.

Ah, the old perennial question of weaning.

IMHO you take the guidelines.

I was weaned at 8 weeks (Fucking Hell) back in the 70's (to my mothers' shame) and this was par for the course.

First DC was born when the guidelines stated weaning at 12 weeks - so I did. He's fine, no allergies to food or anything apart from keeping his room clean

Second DS was weaned at 16 weeks as per the guidelines of the time. We had an awful time, allergies to egg, dairy and strawberries all were present and it was terrible. (He's fine now - infantile allergies which cleared up after we cut all allergens and didn't reintroduce for a long time)

Should I be lucky enough to have a baby again - I would not start even thinking about weaning until the guidelines stated (and since discovering MN, I think I would probably breastfeed for as long as I could and then move onto BLW)

No that is far too early, risks are predominantly obesity, bowel cancer, Chrones disease, diverticulitis and stomach cancers. Funnily enough I told this to a mum in a clinic who had started at 3 months (not on that scale) who had weaned her other child early and she vowed to reverse it! i.e. stop and give hungry baby milk instead.
Also babies aren't designed to sleep overnight, they are designed to suckle on and off, evidenced by the fact that both mums and babies produce oxytocin which induces sleep at night while breastfeeding.

Booyhoo, nope. I think guidelines are fairly pointless. If people used their brains more and followed guidelines less we would all be better off. I don't need to have every aspect of my life governed by some directive or other issued by a know nothing know it all in an office somewhere!

Back in 2001 the guidlines were 4 months, I remember feeling like I should start weaning DS1 but didn't really want to as he was doing fine and it seemed a bit too early, my god I was so unsure back then but 3dc later and I just go with my instincts.

The guidelines are not prescriptive. They do not say you MUST wean at 6 months. What they actually do is explain that they are ready around this time as that's when their stomachs are ready. They point out the signs to look out for (sitting up, reaching, grabbing, putting things in their mouth). They use language like 'around 6 months' and 'about 26 weeks'. They acknowledge that there is a biological norm and a deviation from it. They advise to look for the signs. They suggest you enjoy it and follow your baby. They also take great pains to explain that waking up and watching you eat etc are nothing to do with gut maturation.

Guidelines are here.

MrsBananaGrabber, in 2001 the guidelines were 4-6 months.

but saggy surely most people still do apply common sense when considering guidlines. i mean is it not common sense to follow a guideline that is based on years of medical research on the infant gut rather than just give the child a spud because you fancy sleeping all night? i know which sounds more sensible to me.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading that years and years ago (1920s, 1930s), the usual age for babies to be weaned was around 9/10 months. Then between the world wars with the introduction of ready-made baby food and associated marketing, the weaning age got earlier and earlier.

hmm

also saggy, when you say use their brains. there are some people who really have no clue on what they should be doing when it comes to children. guidlines give them a basic, factually based path to follow.

and some people just have no common sense.

Whoops, sorry, those are guidelines from 1953 - think we can all agree that that is madness!

But you do away with guidelines based on years of research and what you're left with is situations where a mother doesn't actually know if her baby's waking is normal or whether they're supposed to be offering solids or not. And of course parents/grandparents/the woman at the cornershop will tell you that they weaned at 8 weeks onto rusk in a bottle and look at their baby now, why not do it? And that's terrible advice. Because we seek out reassurance and good advice when we don't know the answer through instinct (and instinct cannot tell you a baby's gut is sealed). And thank God we live in a world where there is decent advice based on research. Good information and decent research does amazing things for the health of the country. You can't just wish it away. You wouldn't want the alternative.

saggy you are seriously misinformed. Babies died of diarrhoea, vomiting, malnutrition, had ricketts when weaned early and physicians as far back as 1859 understood that only mothers milk provided the essential ingredients for a healthy baby (yes this was before formula, however would you suckle a pigglet with cows milk, a puppy with cats milk, a hamster with goats milk???, probably not because they aren't suitable). Why do people fail to see that the perfect food for babies is their mothers own milk and failing that, formula. Babies cannot take as much in calories through foods as they do in milk because their stomachs do not have the capacity, therefore they fail to thrive. They may be fine in weight but lacking in essential vitamins and minerals needed for good development. This includes the brain, so many will do less well at school as a result of pure ignorance.

coos where/when is that from?