to think Eastenders have really entered the realms of utter bollox now.

[AtYourCrucifix]

Apparently baby Tommy/James 'likes mashed bananas the best'

HE IS NOT EVEN 4 SODDING MONTHS OLD YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS.

DO the not know of current weaning guidelines??????

And rather tahn getting formula from Fat Elvis why do they not just pop into Tesco like the rest of us?

I'm not really against guidelines, I just think too many people believe they are there as a hard and fast rule, and perhaps the NHS is guilty of painting the picture as such.

As for Eastenders, well I don't really watch much telly but I did see last nights episode. Kat looks ever so slightly vampire-ish

But having guidelines, which people don't follow, cause so much guilt and anxst. This place is full of posts by people who know their babies need solids, but who feel guilty for not sticking ot the guidelines.

They should change the guidelines.

Out of interest I wonder what they do do in the rest of the world.

agree bollocks to guidlines

get so fed up by zealots holding up WHO like they are GOD and castigating people that think otherwise

esp with regards to BF, but lets NOT EVEN GO THERE

The guidelines say 'around' 6 months because they recognise that some babies will be ready a bit earlier, some later. They also say to look at the signs. So if your baby is sitting, has no tongue thrust reflex and can pick up the food and put it in their mouths, chew and swallow, then they're ready. Nowt prescriptive about that. Seems like they're actively encouraging you to look at your baby and recognise their individual readiness to wean. How that's 'nazi' and insisting that all babies are the same I have no idea.

And I will repeat it again for those that missed it the first time. Guidelines became 6 months in 2003. Before this they were 4-6 months for 20 years. One slight change in nearly 30 years, hardly changing all the time. So no they weren't 16 weeks (this isn't 4 months) 10 years ago or 20 years ago or whatever. They certainly weren't 12 weeks either. But they did find that people tend to interpret the guidelines anyway and say 'ach well they're nearly there'. Hence why nobody waits till 6 months anyway. With 4-6 months, people thought 14 and 15 weeks was 'nearly there'.

FabbyChic. I note that you like to stick to this '8oz' thing and this insistence about weight. They know now that weight and volume of milk have NOTHING to do with weaning readiness. It's about gut maturation ie the gut being able to cope with solids. This is a biological thing, nothing to do with the size or milk intake of a baby. And bear in mind if you're bfing then you have bugger all clue how much milk they're taking anyway so your 'rules' are a bit of a nonsense and not at all backed up by any form of knowledge about actual babies and biology.

And it's said over and over again on here. Anecdote is not data. Of course the majority of babies who are weaned early are probably fine. You have nothing to compare it to, but generally, there will be no great detriment that you can point to. But on a national and internationl level, the general health of human babies and adults will be best served by weaning around the time that your baby shows it's truly ready. For most this seems to be around 26 weeks. I'm not going to start telling you that I stepped out into the road without looking and didn't die so therefore it's fine. Good sense tells me that it might be fine and hundreds of people might do it with no detriment to themselves. But it's hardly a recommendation.

People are at liberty to wean when they want. It's none of my business. But in the interests of good information based on research, it's probably best to be clear about the facts.

Not been watching but just had the really random worry about how they sort out the child benefit ..

People don't treat them as guidelines, clearly because you have ridiculous op"s like this one fgs.
The advice WILL change again in the light of the next study. When that will be I don't know but empirical evidence shows that a change in weaning advice will happen and then everyone will be going on about how babies shouldn't be weaned around 6 months because studies show etc etc etc

Turtles Sorry but I was advised that weaning could start at 12 weeks, my DD is 20. This was from a health visitor, and I also remember most of my anti-natal group starting to wean their babies at this age.

By the time DD2 arrived I do remember it being 16 weeks, but she actually wasn't ready at that time.

A health visitor giving duff information? Shurley not?

GiddyPickle, what are the weaning guidelines in other countries?

12 weeks was the guideline when I had my first.
Think it was about 16 weeks when I had my last.
My children have all grown into healthy teenagers.
Get a grip OP

"Six month old infants are physiologically and developmentally ready for new foods, textures and modes of feeding. Most evidence suggests that introduction before 2 to 3 months or later than 6 months has more risks than benefits (Schmitz and McNeish, 1987). The early introduction of complementary foods may satisfy the hunger of the infant, resulting in less frequent breastfeeding and ultimately less milk production in the mother. Because iron absorption from human milk is depressed when the milk is in contact with other foods in the proximal small bowel, early use of complementary foods may increase the risk of iron depletion and anemia."

SOURCE

The following organizations recommend that all babies be exclusively breastfed (no cereal, juice or any other foods) for the first 6 months of life (not the first 4-6 months):

* World Health Organization
* UNICEF
* US Department of Health & Human Services
* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Academy of Family Physicians
* American Dietetic Association
* Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
* Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
* Health Canada

source

I wonder what other European countries do, it's really hard to find the info on the internet.

Doesn't matter Dueling. My father's uncle's neighbour's llama was weaned at 2 weeks and he has a nobel prize.

[tic]

I could write storylines for Eastenders I reckon.

The latest study hasn't been taken seriously as it was highly flawed and biased - well apart from the press and people shouting "goody it's proving our point that guidelines change all the time!"

As I said on the other thread they've succeeded in this one, they made us talk about something other than the swap! Three threads at least!

When you say 'as strictly as us' what do you mean? Isn't the reality that it's unenforcable and parents tend to do what they want.

I think there is room for discretion when they used language like 'around' and 'about' 6 months. They specifically say to enjoy it and to look for your child's individual signs. They also acknowledge that if you're weaning early you should never do it before 17 weeks and tell you what to avoid if you do wean between 17 and 26 weeks. Hardly strict and without discretion. Actively encouraging you to look at your individual child and follow their lead. In fact they specifically state that you should be led by your child.

So a child is having several 8oz bottles of formula at 4 months and still appears unsatisfied...where do you go from there other than pureed veg? DD2 was 9lbs 2oz, very long as well and when I gave her pureed veg at 4 months - duck to water springs to mind and it was a good while before we dropped a feed so she was having plenty of milk. When we fed solids her she'd go "Om nom nom nom" and I didn't even bother with the little ice cubes of puree stage as she'd eat a whole Tommee Tippee pot of it. She is off the scale height wise though and now at 26 months is taller than most three year olds. She still likes her veg too.

Definitely has to be child led.

It does have to be child led but this is nothing at all to do with weight and centiles. DD for example was off the charts for weight and height by 12 weeks. She was ebf until 27/28 weeks and weight around 26lbs ish I think. So thriving on milk you might say. At nearly 4 she's still on the 91st centile for height and weight. I've had a big baby. No purees here either. Roast dinner was her first meal in its normal form.

Child led means looking for the sigsn of gut maturation not looking at the scales.

And I didn't ff so don't know what 8oz of milk even looks like. DD fed whenever she asked. Sometimes it was after half an hour, sometimes after a few hours. She regulated her own appetite. If she asked for more, she had more. Milk that is. Milk is more calorific than first foods too so if your baby is hungry, milk will satisify them quicker than veg or whatever it is you're giving at 4 months.

Introducing solids isn't about satisifying appetite. That's what the milk's for. Food is just a complement/experience at first.

"I'm not going to start telling you that I stepped out into the road without looking and didn't die so therefore it's fine. Good sense tells me that it might be fine and hundreds of people might do it with no detriment to themselves. But it's hardly a recommendation"

I'm stealing this quote for the next time dh says to me " well so and so did this blah blah" - Thank you Turtles for summing up so eloquently what I have been trying to put into words for years

Completely agree with everything you said!

I just went to meet two friends with baies. One started weaning at 15/16 weeks, the other is going to start at 17 weeks because 'I need sleep'. Everyone in my nct group is talking about weaning at 4 months (one has started already) - it really is true that most people don't leave it to 6 months. I am planning waiting but I feel like the odd one out. From talking to others either they are not aware of the guidelines or they are just determined to ignore them.

yanbu - I was very irritated by it last night.