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?!

I have 2ds's one of 11 and one of 3. Between them the guidelines changed. Now I could have said well ds1 is fine so I'll do same, but IMO all the research is done for good reason. As more research is done we learn more. So I looked into evidence, read up on it and felt gill rapley blw was for us. I was also ebf so nursing varies according to growth spurts.

I guess the gist of it is, that tho my ds1 is fine, I am open to well evidenced research and advice and will consider latest views. I therefore didn't actively wean ds2 and followed him and he started trying food from my plate near to 6 months.

So I don't really care for the "it worked for my dc" as things change.

In nursing, for example, it's important to keep up to date with latest research to provide best care. Why is parenting any different?

Annecdote does not equal data. There is plenty of data out there about why this is not a good idea. Choose to ignore it if you like.

Ohhh and I gave mine Marmite on toast from 6 months too!
And ds refused formula from 7 months, so went onto cows milk

your baby your choice. I would hazard a guess that most of us on here were weaned at 12 weeks as was the advice 30 odd years ago, and most of us on here are perfectly normal healthy adults because of it.

now someone do the gavel and let that be an end to it!

that should have said in spite of it

Wow - there's some strong opinions on here. As soon as I read your post I knew you were going to get a rough ride.

Babies are not machines and do not follow operating intructions. Like you said guidelines are just that - guidelines. You know your baby and have done what you thought is right.

I hope you don't get upset by the comments.

This thread has been done so so many times before.

The guidelines are there for a reason. They change because more information becomes known.

At present the advice is that the gut isn't mature enough to cope with anything other than milk until around 6 months and giving food can cause problems later in life.

There have been studies published linking obesity, allergies and regressive autism to early weaning - not risks I would like to take, but if you want to then that is your choice.

Telling people who may criticise you is a bit daft IMO

Did anyone elses mother use shovel loads f salt in everything that was cooked as well?
Thats one thing I didnt follow my mum on!!

YY mumnotmachine to salt

oh and a tot of whiskey in the bottle to help me sleep

Did anyone elses mother use shovel loads f salt in everything that was cooked as well?

No but my father used to ladle it on his dinners - he didnt have HBP either. Amazingly my Husbands family was salt free and they all suffered HBP.

I'm sorry - regressive autism?

Op, this is what your baby has already had twice and will have again before six months if you're following the vaccine schedule.

"1.5 mg aluminum phosphate (0.33 mg aluminum) as the adjuvant, polysorbate 80 (approximately 10 ppm by calculation), ≤ 5 µg residual formaldehyde, < 50 ng residual glutaraldehyde, ≤ 50 ng residual bovine serum albumin, 3.3 mg (0.6% v/v) 2-phenoxyethanol (not as a preservative) and < 4 pg of neomycin and < 4 pg polymyxin B sulfate."

I hardly think a few carrots can compete with that.

My ds is also 3m, was 9lb6oz at birth and was 14lb1oz a fortnight ago.

I'm not contemplating weaning at the moment but found it interesting that his gastro-paed consultant said he would almost certainly need early weaning. When I questioned this as it was directly against the guidelines she said that the guidelines were based on an average. Some babies needed weaning much earlier and some much later, some guts matured earlier than others.

I'm happy to take her opinion when it comes to weaning.

And, to be absolutely honest, whilst I'm not weaning, ds is having a spoonful of pureed apple (starting today) as it's the only way to get his meds into him. I didn't like the idea, and he's obv not ready as he's still spitting it up lots, but I can't see I have any other option.

To sum up OP yabu to tell them to piss off but might not bu for early weaning him.

Did she get a rough ride? am I reading the same thread as everyone else? The one that sayd, repeatedly, that the research is a load of tosh and given that at least one person (who, incidentally is alive to make the claim, so a bit of a self-selecting sample) survived early weaning the OP should do whatever her instincts tell her.

buttonmoon please ask the paed how many "smaller" babies he or she has advised late weaning for? In the interests of "average"

I promise, this is genuine and not just a bunfight for the sake of it.

And I asked for opinions, so thank you - even if you think I'm mad!

Babies sleep patterns change. It's happens. Doesn't matter what they are or are not eating it will still happen.

The 4 month rule is there because that is when the babies organs are developed enough to deal with it. Weaning too early is linked to organ failure and problems later in life.

The fact that your baby is big doesn't mean that will have more advanced development of organs!

Sounds too much trying to feed your baby to make it sleep to me.

It would make sense that a premature baby would be weaned later than a full term baby
But again, depends on the baby

If I was doing it all again I would still wean at around 3 months

In the interests of average, I'll ask her as I'm speaking to her tomorrow. I'm sure she'll love a MNer questioning her advice and expertise

Actually, I'm fairly sure she'll say that she regularly does. She's a very sensible lady. But I will ask and let you know.

Well I think most people born in the sixties are "survivors" of early weaning. Like, at ten pounds. I'm not stuffed full of atopy either and neither are my contemporaries. I barely know anyone with atopic disease.

I was started on baby rice at 6 weeks old because I was hungry but wouldn't drink much milk, apparently. Still can't drink milk now, 37 years later, without feeling sick. Are we really saying that my entire generation has more health problems because we were all weaned too early? It has nothing at all to do with other modern-life factors? Really? Don't actually think so.

Quite apart from that, my two DSs were both weaned at 12 weeks as that was the "magic age" when they were babies. Neither has imploded yet, funnily enough.

The only problem is that NO-ONE can tell when a babies gut is ready for it. It stands to reason that the earlier you introduce what is in effect a foreign substance to it, the more likely it is that problems could occur? Therefore waiting until 17 weeks, when it is likely the gut will begin to seal itself against possible nasty effects, is prudent?

Biologically, a baby is ready to wean when they can sit up by themselves and can pass food from hand to hand accurately and get it to their mouth, plus chew.

Can someone explain this please :).. obesity levels are at an all time high, compared to 40 years ago when babies were regularly given rice/solids at a much earlier age than 6 months...

Allergies are also much more prevalent nowadays compared to 40 years ago..

I would actually be more inclined to follow the advice of my MIL who raised two healthy children, than blindly follow so called experts who have often been funded to get "a result".

Yabu to tell them to piss off. It's up to you what you do, but if you're knowingly flying in the face of medical advice don't be surprised if those around you can't condone it.

Of course this is all just life experience. My own were done at around sixteen weeks, recommended at the time. None is atopic.