Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

to think there isn't a difference between BLW and finger foods?

153 replies

putthekettleon · 28/01/2011 11:26

Ok I'm preparing to be flamed, and I have no problem with baby led weaning, but it's been bugging me for a while now...

When talking about weaning, so many people I know in real life/people I see on here say they are doing 'a combination of purees and BLW'. Or they say 'we're doing BLW... but I spoon-feed him if we're having yoghurt/mashed potato/soup etc..'. Surely that is just weaning?? Do they think that other people only ever give purees and never give lumpy or finger food? That if you give any kind of finger food it is BLW?

With both DC I started off on purees for a week or 2, quickly moved up to mashed food and introduced finger foods as well, like steamed carrots, rice cakes, broccoli, toast etc, when they seemed ready for it. DD2 is 7 months and eats all sorts. I just call it food.

Whenever I hear someone talking about BLW I have to fight the urge to say 'in my day (only 2 years ago!) we just called it finger food...'

Ok, as you were, just needed to get that off my chest!

OP posts:

narkypuffin · 29/01/2011 22:46

Baby led weaning is about waiting until the child can feed itself rather than spooning puree into a 17 week old.

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/01/2011 22:52

Don't you mean just spooning puree? Was the 17 weeks necessary there?

narkypuffin · 29/01/2011 22:54

Yes. Because the whole point of BLW is that you're waiting until the child is ready to feed not when you're ready to feed it. You can have a baby on three meals a day at four months with spoon feeding.

Aitch · 29/01/2011 22:55

i suppose that she meant it in the sense that 17 weeks is arbitrary? for example regardless of the six months guideline both my children self-fed a bit earlier than that and of course i let them, because they were actually doing it, iykwim?

WimpleOfTheBallet · 29/01/2011 22:58

They're all catch-phrases invented to sell books. Nothing more.

scottishmummy · 29/01/2011 22:58

blw is synonymous with the cloth bummed crew.tossers

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/01/2011 22:59

So people who start off with purees tend to do it arbitarily regardless of whether the baby is showing any interest?

maryz · 29/01/2011 23:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Aitch · 29/01/2011 23:01

sorry, am not with you maisie.

WimpleOfTheBallet · 29/01/2011 23:02

Here's some more.

Putting the baby to bed in a cot...

Is now: "Non-attached rest".

Changing the baby's nappy when it wees.

"Moisture-led cleansing".

Taknig the baby for a walk in it's pram

"wheel-led exercize"

ruddynorah · 29/01/2011 23:02

I think it was derived from gill rapleys masters? Or PhD possibly? So no desire to sell anything. However there was an enormous demand for a book. And she wrote one. As would I if I was her. She has nothing else to sell from it really, not in an AK kind of way.

bumpsoon · 29/01/2011 23:04

Have to admit when i first heard about this BLW malarky i thought it stood for breast led weaning and was very confused
In our house we are very strict and follow SLW to the letter ,that would be sibling led weaning ,which to those of you unfamiliar with the method ,can start as early as 1 day old

Aitch · 29/01/2011 23:04

i don't imagine anyone would make a convincing case for blw being a terrific name. it was just a paper that GR wrote for a nursing journal, and that's what she called it. imo it causes more confusion than it does anything else.

if it was me, i'd have said something more like 'self-feeding' as i think it better describes what's going on.

maryz · 29/01/2011 23:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scottishmummy · 29/01/2011 23:06

wimpole where you get those terms? i-am-goddess-i-am-mother.com

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/01/2011 23:07

What don't you get? Apparently, people who start off with purees do so at 17 weeks, - my question is, why lump everyone who doesn't BLW in with weaning at 17 weeks? It is perfectly possible for those same parents to use purees because their baby has started to show interest in food.

WimpleOfTheBallet · 29/01/2011 23:08

No Scottish....from "I-am-Womb-co-uk"

scottishmummy · 29/01/2011 23:10

blw tend to be halo polishers by act of presenting baby with broccoli they have saved the world

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/01/2011 23:10

We used PLW (parent led weaning) - which involved DH dropping a chip on a day trip to St Andrews whilst babywearing (there's another irritating term for you), and wondering where the hell it went - only to discover 3 week old DC3 sucking happily on it

narkypuffin · 29/01/2011 23:11

17 weeks is an age that a child is bloody unlikely to be able to feed itself Maisie. I'm not saying that everyone who uses puree weans at that age. I'm saying that with BLW you can't wean at that age.

Aitch · 29/01/2011 23:11

sorry, i thought you had been talking to me because you used arbitrarily, as i had done. but you weren't, i presume? because i never said anything like your next line, nor would i, nor have i ever... in fact i think i quite specifically said that of course you can be led by your baby without doing blw.

scottishmummy · 29/01/2011 23:12

lol,i liked your post wimpole.more from i-am-womb-i -am womble.com please

Maisiethemorningsidecat · 29/01/2011 23:14

No, it was in response to Narky. What makes you think you can't you wean a baby at that age with BLW? In years gone by finger food was being given by that age

WimpleOfTheBallet · 29/01/2011 23:16

at WombWomble! Good tag for a certain type I think! Oh look! Here come the Womb Wombles!

Original poster

putthekettleon · 29/01/2011 23:16

sorry I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek, don't really think it's mean!

But honestly? When I first heard of BLW I thought it sounded interesting, and seeing as I fit all the cliches of breastfeeding, cosleeping, wearing a sling a lot of the time etc it seemed to go with the territory. But the more I read about it (borrowed a friend's Gill Rapley book) the more I thought it's kind of making a big deal over something that isn't a big deal. Like the people who talk about 'babywearing' and think you should wear a sling all the bloody time rather than admitting a sling is just a useful tool to be used as and when you want to. I get the theory that it's all about the baby choosing what they want to eat and learning about new tastes and textures etc. But I think a lot of the so-called benefits can be equally gained from just having a mum with half a brain who doesn't shovel food in when the baby has clearly had enough and offers them a wide variety of foods and tastes and textures.

Interestingly, DD1 (and quite a lot of other kids I knew) went through a stage at the age of 9-10 months of only wanting to eat with her hands. So I do think there may be an argument for saying that's the age to really start giving them a choice of foods, textures and things to eat independently, rather than 6 months.

Comments like: "Baby led weaning is about waiting until the child can feed itself rather than spooning puree into a 17 week old." just get my back up as it makes an assumption that if you don't do BLW, you do the complete opposite and give puree to tiny babies who aren't ready, which is nonsense.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Swipe left for the next trending thread