to consider weaning my DS at 17/18 weeks?

[auburnlizzy78]

I will discuss this with my GP and HV of course, but have a feeling they are going to give me the party line of "the DOH/WHO guidelines say exclusive BF for the first six months" and there will be very little discussion of our actual situation. So I wanted to ask what you would all do/did do if you had a similarly big and hungry baby. Trying not to be accused of drip feeding so these are hopefully all the relevant facts:

• DS (first child) will be 14 weeks old this weekend
• He was 8lb 13oz at birth, at 42 weeks gestation.
• At 13 weeks he was 16lb 3oz and has stayed faithfully to his 91st centile line for weight since birth. Think he will double his birthweight (i.e. reach 17lb 10) by 17/18 weeks. I understand that this is one of the indicators for readiness to wean.
• He is 98th centile for length. Overall, size pretty appropriate considering DH is 6ft 3.)
• He slept 12 hours per night without waking since he was nine weeks old. But in the last week he has started waking up again and properly yelling in the early hours, necking 150ml/5oz and going straight back to sleep. So I don't think it's teething pain, nappy, or any other reason.
• I think he is starting to teethe but not causing any major discomfort yet.
• He is fed about 1 litre/30-32oz expressed breast milk every day, plus a 200ml carton of formula. In the last week he has needed two cartons a day. He sloshes when you hold him.

• Plenty of wees and an epic poo a day.
• No health issues. He's a bright, alert, feisty, very wriggly baby!
• Can sit up supported and hold his head up. Pretty much was doing that from 8 weeks old (GP was quite shocked at the 6-8week review)
• He has become fascinated by us eating.
• He is quite capable of taking 120/150ml- 4-5oz every hour in the evenings, growth spurt or not.
• No allergies in the family on either side.

Thanks for reading. Instinct tells me and DH that milk alone is no longer enough. We would only give a bit of baby rice for now with a couple of feeds each day, to see how it goes, rather than weaning fully, for now.

What would you do if you were in our shoes?

The op's baby is apparently not yet 14 weeks and yet part of the first response to her advised

"Be careful not to overload esp in regards to chocolate or meat or other slightly harder to digest things like that."

ffs (that is only the second time I have used that phrase but I really feel it is warranted here)

Now I can only assume that advice was some sort of (very inappropriate) joke.

It's your call. All babies are v different. My HV said it's fine to wean anytime from 17 weeks if they're ready. I know someone who was advised (in 2010) to wean her 18 week old premmie by a consultant paediatrician.

That said, in my experience it isn't always the big babies who need solids earliest, quite the opposite in fact. I had to wean DD1 (25th centile) at 19.5 weeks as she had stopped sleeping, was crying e ery time I ate etc. She took to it right away. DD2 is a big girl, 98th centile for length 75th to 91st for weight. We easily got to 6 months with her, and even then she much prefers the boob. They're all different. Also, think it has been said before but remember WHO guidelines apply to the whole world, most residents if which are not fortunate enough to have easy access to sterilisers, organix baby rice or indeed the complete works of Annabel Karmel.

read this

so YANBU

YANBU

Had similar situation with DD1

Could not stuff any more milk in to her by 4 months

I found the Gina Ford weaning book very useful as got no guidance at all from HV/GP apart from parroting of the WHO guidance. Still it is sensible that you discuss with yours who might be better.

Reading some of the posts here, I believe DD1 is a freak of nature as she slept much better once weaning began!

I'm not convinced about delaying the introduction of gluten either - apparently introducing it after 7 months is as risky as before 4 months.

EdarAleNPie that is an interesting piece of reading -thank you!

You may find this report interesting (I claim no credit for finding it - someone posted it on my postnatal thread). It's a recent report from the British Dietetic Association, which basically says that there is no evidence that 'early' weaning does any harm whatsoever (and that weaning at 6 months can lead to iron deficiencies in some babies). It says, as someone else on here said, that the recommendation to wait until 6 months comes from the WHO, and is largely based on issues in developing countries.

Incidentally, without wishing to sound narky, I'm slightly confused about the whole baby led weaning thing (admittedly, I haven't read up on it much). The name suggests that it's all about being led by your baby, and doing what they're ready for. But if your nearly 5 month old swipes a bit of food from your plate, stuffs it in their mouth, chews and swallows the lot, and then looks like it's the most exciting thing that's ever happened to them (as mine did today), surely the 'baby led' thing to do would be to give them more food?? (Incidentally I haven't started weaning yet, but I'm wondering if the time is nigh.)

many loads of crap spouted on this thread.

weaning@ 17 weeks is not associated with higher incidence of allergies
there is no increase in bowel disease either
baby rice mixed with BM has twice as many calories as BM alone.

EBF to 6mo can be done but many Mums find all that feeding a PITA.

there is evidence that introducing solids reduces frequency of feeds - so might it help with endless feeding, without harm to baby?

answer: Yes.

ElusiveMoose - that is exactly what blw is!

ealingkate suggested the "Hungry Baby" milk and we tried that too... we found too much of that stuff upset our son's stomach. I think it might have constipated him or something (seems like a lifetime ago). We carried on using it, but only gave him one feed of that, about "bedtime" (hollow laughter) He was a rubbish sleeper, and it was what should have been his bedtime.

I have read the WHO guidelines, and because both my partner and I have a family history of eczema, I'm keen to carry on breastfeeding as long as possible (I was breastfed until I was 2). I was also keen not to introduce food before 6 months. However, it wasn't like we went from breastmilk to a 3-course dinner. My DS got a rusk stick maybe once or twice a day for a month. Then the rusk was made into gruel and baby rice introduced at 5 months. No other food until he was 6 months. I read lots of articles, talked to my HV and GP, etc. Yes, the guidelines are there for a reason, and yes things used to be done differently, but not all babies are the same!

Elusive, yes it is! If your baby can grab, chew and swallow food then let him.

Elusive, in that case I would consider it, esp if the chewing and swallowing has happened - I think in most cases babies are closer to 6 months when that's possible, but that is, to me, the essence of BLW. ds was doing this at about 22 weeks, maybe? He started to grab stuff, but I think it was 24 weeks before I properly offered food, and he didn't eat much for a while. He's still an out and out thief of food.

That BDA report is interesting, as it looks at a question someone asked on here ages ago about whether the risks of weaning earlier applied to babies who'd been given formula, rather than being ebf.

I've been having kids so long (23 years) the advice has changed many times. They've all been weaned between 18-22 weeks and seemed to benefit from a bit of baby rice at the beginning, followed by home made vegetable or fruit puree for a while, with extra protein coming after the first birthday at some point. The world did not end, ;.) Do what you think is right, any time from now on would seem reasonable to me.

my first two slept far better when i weaned - am now started on no. 3.

PS It is actually possible to stop giving solids if it seems a mistake with hindsight - you are not crossing a rubicon here.

Oh, ok, thanks. I had somehow got it into my head that BLW was a 'thou shalt not feed thy baby solids before six months' thing. (Like the OP's little boy, mine is a big strapping lad. He was also 2 weeks late, not sure if that makes much difference. Plus, he is currently savaging anything that comes within reach of his mouth, rather like a small, fat, terrier .)

Well, no, not really, Moose, just that usually it's not worth trying until nearer the end of the 4-6 month period, iyswim?

When I saw my doc last year re weaning she heartily disagreed with waiting until 6 months to wean. She believed its resposible for a delay in speech as babies are not using the muscles in the mouth.
Just thought Id thown that in!!

ahh, throw not thrown

My speech therapist friend thinks that's guff, abenstille...

I started mine on baby rice and so on when they were four months. They were large and hungry babies, and they couldn't wait to start eating. Go with your instinct.

In the late 1980's and early 1990's the advice was to wean at 3 months.

The kids I babysay for were weaned at this age with baby rice. One is at Medical School, the other is at Oxford University and the other just got straight A's on his GCSE's.

All three are in the best of health.

For all the difference it made to them.

It's your child, do you what you think is best.

A1980 that's not true. It's been 6 months for 8 years now and before that it was between 4 and 6 months for 20 years.