AIBU to tell them to piss off?!

[BabyMama212]

I've got a beautiful 3-month-old son, he was 9lb 4 at birth and is now a rather hefty 14lb 1lb. Today I gave him his first taste of baby rice and he loved it.

The reasons why I gave him baby rice today are as follows:

• He started sleeping through the night at seven weeks, but now he wakes for a feed again.
• Halfway through his feed he tries to physically push his bottle away, then complains because he is still hungry
• He chews his hands before and after each feed
• He is absolutely fascinated with our food and drink
• He tries to pick up our food
• God help us if we sit down to a meal and he isn't there. He'll even wake up from a nap if he realizes we're eating without him.
• He refuses to nap during the daytime when before he would sleep for two hours at a time and then be awake for 4-5. And if he DOES nap, he'll sleep for maybe half-an-hour, then get grumpy because he is very tired.

The trouble is that obviously, this incited the wrath of several mums I know who went ballistic on me for weaning before the 17-week mark. I've said that it's my decision, all of the signs are there and they've been there long enough for me to know that this isn't just a growth-spurt but a real thing, but of course they won't listen. One even borderline-accused me of child abuse.

I've told them to butt out and stop being so judgeypants, as I didn't judge them on deciding to start their child on pureéd food at the age of eight months, but they've really upset me.

I realize that the guidelines are there for a reason... but guidelines and just that - GUIDELINES! Aren't they? I'm prepared for abuse from other people on here, but I just want to know.... AIBU?!

My babies used to try and eat soil, and worms and paper. By your reckoning they were showing signs of needindg soil and worms and paper.

Try learning something before you flounce. All your real life have told you you're wrong. Everyone here says your wrong. All the books, leaflets, medical advice, WHO, NHS, tells you you are wrong.
Take a fucking hint.

*real life friends.

Oh, I'm sorry miss "I'm fucking blind as a bat", didn't you see? HV agrees with her. I'm on her side, provided she's done her research. No need to be nasty about her. Besides - how is she any different from everyone else? You all think you're right even when told otherwise, so how about pissing off?

Hi OP, I haven't read the whole thread, but can I say that if it works for you and your baby, and your baby is happy and in good health then what you do is fine and please don't feel that you should explain yourself to anyone at all.

HV is a moron as well, if she agrees with her. Which I sincerely doubt. And she hasn't done any research because the most cursory glance at ANYTHING would tell her she's wrong.

So how about you piss off, and read a book?

Flounce away. But there is no reputable authority that says it is a goodnidea to wean at 3 months. None. And if your hv says you can, she is wrong.

I bet you're a God-botherer too, aren't you? You seem to be well-versed in the "I'm right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot" repertoire.

Her HV agrees with her, and half the people here agree with her. And funnily enough, most of the half that agree are the ones who aren't getting bitchy. Why don't you all just calm down dear? It isn't going to kill the baby. Although some of you sound like you eat your young..

I don't think anyone agreed that putting rice in a bottle was a good idea and I don't think any hv should be agreeing to it either, as for causing any harm, who knows , you can't fast forward 3O years to check

OP, I think it would be worth re-reading your most recent post and having a think about your logic and reasoning. You castigate other posters for pointing out that the list of "weaning signs" you cited are just normal baby behaviour. And then in the same breath you tell them not to say that sitting up is a possible weaning sign as, in your opinion, that is just normal development.

Do you not see the discrepancy in your reasoning here? All the things that your baby IS doing are interpreted as indicators of readiness for weaning. The one thing that he ISN'T doing, you dismiss out of hand as effectively just being a baby.

Sitting up is a pretty big developmental milestone which may not give any indication of what is going on inside the baby, but certainly moves the baby a step closer to being capable of eating safely and properly. Nature is pretty efficient and it is presumably no co-incidence that the motor skills and developmental milestones that will eventually be put into play by a child in feeding himself develop broadly around the time that research indicates that the gut becomes ready for solids. It would be odd if we had evolved in such a way that all these processes developed at completely different times.

The things you list CAN be indicators of weaning readiness. They can also be just normal, developmental processes. I was rather under the impression that these lists were now outdated, and that the most up-to-date thinking is that the most conclusive sign is that a child can pick up food, get it to his mouth and chew and swallow that food.

The point people are trying to make is that you simply don't know if these "signs" mean that your child's gut is sealed and ready to go, or whether the food that he is ingesting is leaking out of the gut and potentially causing problems. None of the posters on here know that either. The difference is that the cautious approach that most people are advocating will not harm your baby in the long run - it might piss him off a bit if he really is ready, but it won't harm him. If he isn't ready, if these signs are nothing more than normal baby behaviour, then there is a risk of harm. Why risk it?

I suspect this is a waste of time - I think that you have, for whatever reason, categorically made up your mind to press on with early weaning whatever anyone else says. But please think very carefully about everything that has been said and don't let defensiveness push you on into doing something that might not be necessary or wise. And be very, very wary of blindly following your HV's advice. I am horrified that there is a practicing HV out there who would actually endorse baby rice in a bottle at 3 months old. I think my HVs would have dropped dead with shock if anyone had suggested this to them. Maybe get a second opinion from another HCP.

It's getting more like nethuns in here every day.

It may not kill the baby immediately - but if you had read any of the research you would know that weaning early (before the gut is sealed) is likely to cause all kinds of problems when they are older. Not at 10 or 12, but in their 30's, 40's, 50's.

MILK is the only thing they need until 6 months, it is a COMPLETE food. Any HV that says otherwise is yet another one who should be put out to pasture.

He wakes for a feed again? - BEING A BABY YES
He rejects his bottle then complains he's still hungry - BEING A BABY YES
He chews his hands before and after each feed - BEING A BABY YES
He is absolutely fascinated with our food and drink - BEING A BABY YES
He tries to pick up our food - BEING A BABY YES
He refuses to nap during the daytime. - BEING A BABY YES

These are signs he's a BABY YES.

You have been told many many many times on this thread what the signs are that he's ready to wean -

Sitting up unaided [And don't say "able to sit up", because that isn't a sign of weaning at all. It would happen anyway, regardless of whether they were on solids or liquids, so it's just a sign of growing up]

For goodness sake - the point is that the baby sits up first. That is a sign he is maturing and so is his gut! No one is saying it only happens on milk or on solids.

Loss of tongue thrust reflex

Ability to pick up food and put in mouth and chew

Surely the fact he is chewing his hands before and after is a clue to you that it has more to do with TEETH not being hungry.

So, the only reason you aren't putting rice in his bottle is because he doesn't like it - nothing to do with the fact that it's dangerous & stupid

No - we aren't TWELVE we are trying to help you see that weaning such a young baby is not the right thing to do and the things you see as 'signs' are not.

Flounce to netmums if you like - we don't mind.

I agreee with chipping in except that it might be twelve- we were told to wean our boys early by paerds and it was probably right for them but as ds1 gets older- 12 in December- he is satrting to develop soem severe allergies and waiting to see the Consultant. I'm glad I did it on paed advice but I would not like to have made the call on that of a HV or anyone less qualified tbh. Not when I watch his face sweel up yet again.

Of course, this is just anecdote: the reality is that the WHO guidelines are the best source fo advice for any baby not under specialist medical advice. HV's are not the be all and end all- heck, I did a bf course eyars back and it was mostly HVs and MWs: obviously they needed to elarn despite having practised for years. And HVs give out shite advice every day (my own fave was I could not BF becuase I don't drink milk: really? are you sure? ). They too are supposed to follow guidelines and refer up to a specialist if needed.

op I think your HV lost all credibility when she said put some baby rice in a bottle! I would not take anything she says now as good sound advice, and neither should you.

Who are you talking to "mummytigger" . You're not making a lot of sense either way.

Please read ChippingIn's post op and try and understand that people are offering advice/support.

The human body develops physiologically to support its changing needs. And yes things like sitting up (to prevent choking), loss of tongue thrust reflex (which is there to prevent choking) and ability to pick up food and put it in their mouths (to control portions and prevent choking) have been shown time and again in research to happen at the same time the gut matures. Chewing hands, waking up more, watching you eat have never been shown to coincide with the gut sealing. My ds can watch me eat, he can chew his hands, he wakes a lot but at 6 weeks I know his gut isn't sealed, so how can they be signs of readiness?

You are making a decision for your child. Your child, as the most important person in your life I'm sure, deserves for you to make that choice based on all the available current and factual information. Not on pig-headedness and erroneous wives tales.

Weaning has no possible advantages for you at all. Why do it now? You've given no good reason. Your baby doesn't seem ready, your baby isn't ill or failing to thrive and the evidence suggests that you've overloading a gut which can't cope with it. Why are you taking this risk?

Sitting up is nothing to do with the gut being sealed, that is all nonsense. "

"the available data suggest that both renal
function and gastrointestinal function are sufficiently
mature to metabolise nutrients from complementary
foods by the age of 4 months (12). With respect to
gastrointestinal function, it is known that exposure
to solids and the transition from a high-fat to a
high-carbohydrate diet is associated with hormonal
responses (eg, insulin, adrenal hormones) that result
in adaptation of digestive functions to the nature of the
ingested foods, by increasing the maturation rate of
some enzymatic functions and/or activities (13,14).
Thus, to a large degree gastrointestinal maturation is
driven by the foods ingested.
With respect to neurodevelopment, it is likely that"

from [[http://www.espghan.med.up.pt/position_papers/con_28.pdf Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
46:99?110 # 2008 by European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and
North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition]]

That is one study and while it may be accurate...

Sitting up might not indicate the state of the gut, that's not the point afaik. But it happens around the same time that the gut reaches a point at which it is ready to ingest solids so is an observable sign of a point of development not developmentally attributable to or dependent upon the state of the gut. And it is a very important factor in minimising choking risk. Common sense alone tells us this.

And the guidelines list sitting up for v good reasons. Alongside other signs. It's a picture of a baby's developmental position.

It's not one study - its a position statement by gaesterontologists and nutricianists based on lots of studies.
It is only the NHS that say anything about sitting up, the AAP don't include it, nor to the BDA

AAP advice

"When can my baby eat solid foods?
Most babies are ready to eat solid foods at 4 to 6 months of age. Before this age, instead of swallowing the food, babies push their tongues against the spoon or food. This tongue-pushing reflex is necessary when they are breastfeeding or drinking from a bottle. Most babies stop doing this at about 4 months of age. Energy needs of babies begin to increase around this age as well, making this a good time to introduce solids.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends mothers breastfeed exclusively for at least 4 months but preferably 6 months and continue breastfeeding after introduction of solid foods until 12 months of age. Check with your child's doctor about vitamin D and iron supplements during the first year"

Hmm, guidelines are guidelines, sure, and I think some people are too hung up on getting to 6 months. But as I understand it, 17 weeks is the absolute minimum - although there is not a lot of evidence to show it's better to wait until 6 months, there is loads to show that weaning pre 17 weeks is a bad idea.

So I suppose I think YABU to wean your baby so early. Sorry.

But like I said the sitting up thing is to do largely with choking risk. Make sure your baby can sit up (supported is fine) so they're not going to choke. It's still a sign of readiness or ableness if you prefer.

Yes, most babies are probably ready for solids between 4 and 6 months, the guidelines said this for 20 years. But no fucker listened and thought 13 weeks was close enough to 4 months so did it anyway. The guidelines say all they NEED is milk until 6 months in the vague hope that people will aim for that instead of aiming for 4 months and missing and nearly every single baby will be ready at 6 months if it happens between 4-6 months so setting the guidelines at 6 months makes sense. They list the signs to look for and ask that you look at your baby. If the tongue thrust reflux goes, they can self feed (and they can sit unsupported which most can by 4 months) then fine.

But the op is weaning at 13 weeks.

I weaned my girl at 3 months (recommended by my HV back then). She started on (among other things) baby rice which she loved. She also was a big baby who could not sleep because milk did not fill her up. She seemed to swallow it just fine as far as I remember. She was able to sit in a high chair by then and did not seem to have any problems digesting it.

She is now an intelligent, beautiful, slim, sporty 21 year old with no allergies, food intolerances or indeed any other problems.

This sort of advice is meant as guidance not a rigid law I do not believe there are ever answers that are 100% right for everybody. All babies develop at their own rate; the recognised mile stones are just averages so some babies will fall outside the mean. Also some babies may be born at 38/40 while others are 42/40 so there could be up to 4 weeks difference in development just from different gestations.

Why are people sooooo opinionated over this sort of thing?

ehoney I think people have gotten heated over this one as the op seems to have no regard for the guidelines and is listening to a HV who said put baby rice in a bottle, which is frankly shit advice.

Advice, research, evidence gets updated and moves on.

ehoney it's because we're talking about child health which has been researched and evidence found to suggest that weaning should happen around a certain time alongside the physiological evidence of a child being ready. Anecdotal evidence does not change this. I can step out in front of a car tomorrow and be fine. Doesn't mean it's a recommended behaviour and where we're talking about the health and development of tiny babies and making choices for them, we should at least try and do it with a nod to the evidence.

And no it's not law, they're guidelines. Exactly. I've said it a thousand times on this thread alone BUT they do not say wean at this date exactly. They tell you to look at your baby and wean them when they show the signs. They mention when this might happen and mention a time before which it's evidentially wrong to wean. If that's not recommending that you follow your baby, then I'm baffled. And a 40 week 'due date' is misleading. Term is between 37 and 42 weeks and regardless of where in that window the baby falls, you can still look for the signs. DD for example wasn't ready until nearer 7 months.

The thing is, the OP baby may be just fine in twenty years, but why take the chance? I agree with an earlier poster who suggested changing the teat or bottle for better flow. Might stop feeding frustration.