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.

oops, xpost. i am a bit slow tonight.

My aunt was born in 1950 and my Dad in 1957. My Grandma (85) says that she was aghast at the official advice back then and followed her MIL's advice instead. She bfed each child for several years and weaned them onto solids around 8 months. She said the idea of not feeding to demand or giving solids to a newborn was abhorrent to her. And thankfully she says her peers did the same largely.

What exactly is it that makes some of you so sure that all babies shouln't be weaned until six months?

Have you all actually studied the research, or did you just read it on an NHS leaflet somewhere?

I know the guidelines say 6m, but not so long ago the guidelines said 4m. Maybe now they are just erring on the side of caution be saying 6m incase a tiny number of bebies are adversly affected by being weaned too early. Maybe it's fine for the majority of babies to be weaned at 4m.

It could be like the nuts thing that was around when mine were babies, we were told not to eat nuts to suit the current reaserch into nut allergies, not because there was any definative proof that eating nuts caused nut allergies.

I haven't read the research, so I really have no idea what it says or why the guidelines are what they are. They could be right, they may never be changed again, but two years from now they could also be something completely differnt. I trust my own instinct with my children more than I trust what a government agency has to say.

Btw, I think 2m is likely to be to early, but there is a chance that for that particular baby, the mother is doing the right thing.

I never said I condoned early weaning, but a guideline should be a guideline, there for advice not a hard and fast rule. Like I said, every child is different.

curlymama i don't think that all babies should be six months before weaning. otehr babies are parented by other people so that isn't up to me. i know my ds when weaned at 7 months wasn't ready and so i stopped and waited another month.

but you have to wonder why, after 20 years of teh guidelines being between 4-6 months tehy have changed it to around 6 months. perhaps 20 years was long enough for them to prove a link between weaning before 6 months and all those illnesses mentioned as risks?

I have already pointed out that it isn't a rule, that the guidelines use language like 'around' and 'about' and encourage you to follow your child. They also mention what to do if you wean between 4 and 6 months. They are not prescriptive at all.

And yes I've read the research upon which they're based. I also weaned dd when she was ready. She was not 6 months. Thankfully, I'd read enough to understand how the human body matures and the ways in which that shows in a baby. Not every mother will have done that, nor should she have to. That's what the guidelines are for.

And the guidelines didn't say 4m not long ago. They have been 6 months for 7 yrs and were 4-6 months for 20 years before that.

As an aside, I was given rusks in milk before I left hospital at 10 days (mid 60s)! I only realised that this must have been some form of clinical trial when I came across some research looking at the effects of introducing food 'as early as 6 weeks' from the 1960s. Mind you, they also routinely drugged babies in the nursery while in hospital so they slept so it was a very different era.

But then I was also left at home with the nanny as soon as I got home while my father took my mother on holiday and she won't have it that he was 'reclaiming' her from me. Needless to say, they had to come home as my mum couldn't bear to be separated from me.

My DS stopped sleeping when i started solids and so I held off with my DD until she grabbed food as it went past! HV very supportive but 'had no info' she could give me on 'late' weaning. HV with DS told me he'd never learn to chew if he didn't have finger food before 6 months! Of course, it had all caught up with me by DS2 but he grabbed for food before 6 months!

Lost internet connection! GAH

The point I was trying to make is that we move forward. The guidelines I posted from 1953 are what was believed at the time to be the best way forward ()

We keep moving forward, so the guidelines for solid feeds were moved in my lifetime alone are from 8 weeks to 12 weeks to 16 weeks and now I understand that we're at 6 months - and are developmentally lead.

Do people really believe that these changes aren't down to scientific research? That there is no reason why guidelines change after research has concluded that weaning a baby at 2 days (as per the 1953 guideline I posted) is dangerous and damaging?

Do people in 2010 believe that the 1953 guideline holds any sort of water?

My point is not that guidelines are bollocks - more that as we discover more and understand the way that babies guts work that the more solid weaning is pushed back.

Maybe in 10 years the argument will be for 1 year solid weaning, and I will be thinking "oh, how stupid, 6 months is enough..."

And I will be wrong.

Exactly coos.
The reason the guidelines have moved is because the only way an infant who is unable to chew is able to get adequate iron, vitamins, calcium etc is through milk until 6 months. Babies who cannot steadily sit up in a high chair do not have the muscle development to push food to the back of their mouths. Likewise the bowel is a muscle that contracts in peristalsis, if the muscle is ineffective food sits in the bowel for long periods and ferments. This produces problems and toxic waste that the immature liver and kidneys cannot metabolise.

booyoo and showaddy, I think I cross posted with your earlier posts, was typing slowly!

My youngest is 7, and I was told to wean at 4m, it doesn't seem like that long ago to me!

I don't see how they could have proved a link between ilnesses because of being weaned at 4m when they have only been telling us to wean at 6m for 5 - 6 years. Surely that wouldn't be long enough to tell. So my point was, that maybe this is experimental still and they aren't 100% sure.

As I said earlier, I hadn't read the guidelines, so after seeing that they had been posted while I was posting I had a look. It looks like good information. All I have ever read about weaning at 6m has been on here though, and it had come across to me from this and other threads that weaning beofre that meant you were almost the work of the devil! It's good to see that the official advice does look sensible, and does give Mothers some leeway to decide what is best for their own baby.

early weaning is linked through research to lots of health problems. Thats why mums are advised to leave it later these days.

See? They wouldn't have known that in 1953 would they? Blimey that guideline thingy is amazing. meat at 4 weeks is just fricking boggling.

curly i think the link would have been proven in the 20 years previous as they had babies being weaned at different points between 4 and 6 months and they have noted the differences between those children, some of whom are now adults. does that make sense?

what i mean is that because there were some babies weaned at 4 months and some at 6 months they have 'proof' if you like of how common such illnesses are in both sets of babies?

"Current advice for premature babies is to wean earlier, from 4 months. "
really???

OK, going at it from the common sense angle, surely it is not common sense to give food to a child who can do nothing to eat food other than passively swallow what is pushed into its mouth? Surely if you have to make all 'food' the consistency and texture of milk before the baby will eat it that's a fairly big hint that milk is all the baby needs at that point

I can't find any of this current advice for premature babies. Bliss still advises between 5 and 7 months, many NHS trust advise that the earlier the baby, the longer you wait. All sources seem to suggest you look out for the same signs as you do with a non-premature baby.

The only research around seems to be on iron stores and it's created a lot of confusion and I've found a lot of people on chat forums labouring under the misconception that iron stores suddenly run out and this necessitates early weaning. This is NOT what the research shows and certainly I can't find any evidence to suggest vitamin drops shouldn't be used as a precaution against this as opposed to weaning a baby that isn't ready.

There are NO guidelines specifically for prem babies as far as I can tell but the prem baby sites still recommend 5-7 months and that a baby be reaching, grabbing and sitting up.

Perhaps somebody can link to these new guidelines for prem babies?

Why is it that scientific research is applauded in every other sphere of life, people accept that it moves on - yet with babies it is ignored because it "changes all the time" ? I find this really maddening. Surely it's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that research is a constantly evolving thing ?

I think erroneously there's some link with a baby's 'forwardness' and weaning. Ooh look at little Johnny, he's so big and clever and advanced, he just couldn't survive on milk alone. He was just desperate to eat and join in and grow up. It's the same with sleep really isn't it? I think they're developmental and they happen when they happen but if you can force a baby into sleeping through and eating solids it isn't ready for you, you can chalk it up as your dc being terribly advanced.

I am in no way saying this is the same for everyone. I think some people are ill informed by hcps or unsupported or unsure maybe but my sil put photos of her 13 week old lying on a beanbag being fed baby rice with lots of 'isn't she grown up', 'so clever' captions. I saw this 13 week old being fed and had to leave the room. She was pushing it out with her tongue and having it shovelled back in. She was nearly flat on her back. She was one of the unlucky ones too. She has quite serious gastrointestinal problems now. Started a few weeks following premature weaning. She has a damaged gut. It may not be linked but sil waited till 6 months with the next baby.

thesecondcoming, in 1994 the guidelines were 4-6 months.

And your 4 month old is going through a developmental spurt at the same time as the 4 month sleep regression. I know how brutal it is.

I found crying a lot helped. And then swearing and accusing dh of ridiculous crimes until he cried too.

If I was going down, they were going down with me.

I love big, fat, chubby, bald babies.

You'd love mine then.

He is mahoosive.

We had a late scan at 42 weeks 'cos he was so ridiculously leisurely about being born and the sonographer commented on how chubby his cheeks were

Aww. My dd was off the charts for weight and height fromo 12 weeks- only 7lbs when born- and had rolls on rolls. I miss it. She's 3 now and slim.

YANBU 2 months is too early. Way too early. My babies had growth spurts and needed feeding 2 hrly at times but they always settled down again.

This mumsnet page is great for info