To think that some people are really up there own backsides over early weaning.

[annieee]

Of all the things to latch onto about parenting, why this? Who cares if your kid watched tv in the day, or doesnt eat 5 a day, every day, or hasnt had a bath for a week, or hasn't had enough one to one contact, or enough cuddles, or enough sleep, or enough alone time, or enough attention - you weaned at 6 months, that's whats important. Not like so -and -so's kid from down the road who weaned a few weeks early, He's obviously doomed to a life of allergies and street crime.
Seriously, I'm not the only person who thinks that in a few months/years you genuinely won't give a crap, and neither will anybody else.
I understand not weaning at 'mush' stage when baby can barely hold its own head up, but telling everybody that their baby is DEFINITELY not ready for food before the magic 6 month mark is ridiculous, IMHO.
maybe it's just me who think I'll look after my own not everyone elses...

And I agree with Choceyes.

The guidelines do not change all the time. The WHO guidelines hqve been 6 months for at least 10 years the point is that the vast majoritybof babies will be fine with earlier weaning, but some won't. And as there is no advantage in weaning before 6 months ( apart from in a very tiny number of medical circumstances), it is very frustrating to see people taking a risk, however small, when there is no trade off benefit.

Particlarly when they do it because they think it will help with sleep (it doesn't) or because bizarrely, they seem to think it's an indicator of their babies being advanced in some way.

They are just as many people up their own backsides about not waiting until six months in my experience. Parenting babies seems to be one long competitive mess.

I'm getting rather tired of it.

what choceyes and MrsMumf have said!

we waited until DS could sit up and bring food to his mouth - he was 21 weeks. We will do the same with DC2 I imagine. I don't recall the HV saying anything to us about it though!

I just wanted to add that you shouldnt beat yourself up if you end up weaning late too. My DD was full term and crawling everywhere at five months, but absolutely refused to eat a single mouthful until she was 7.5 months old.

I kept trying, tried purees, then leaving it a bit, tried baby led weaning, then leaving it a bit, tried lots of different foods and she simply wasnt having it, complete meltdown each time (and my cooking isnt bad at all).

Eventually she tried a little bit, but was a very tricky eater until she could have more complex foods like a little casserole with spices. I was so worried. Now she is 23 months and eats really well, so I just think every child is ready at different stages.

Well.... yanbu to get annoyed about peope being up their own behinds about weaning.

But, to be honest, I think yabu to take a "who cares" attitude. I don't give a monkey's about what other parents do with their babies, but I did and do care about when I weaned DD and how, just as I cared about breastfeeding and not letting her cry it out. That's ok, they are just issues I care about (so I did wait to 6 months as I definately wanted to blw, which I did). I would never get up my own arse about it all, but yes, I do care, and so I did what I thought was best precisely becasue I thought that particular way of doing things was best (ie better than other ways).

Isn't all this "oh, who cares" a bit like inverse snobbery? Aren't you just saying "I am the better parent becasue I am so laid back about it all"? I think weaning is just like loads of aspects of parenting - you just do what you believe to be best at the time. And as its your child, you probably do care an awful lot about it at the time!

But yes to letting everyone get on and do their own thing.

A paediatrician friend of mine told me there is a large scale study going on looking at weaning age.
The hypothesis is that late weaning (6 months) is actually CAUSING more allergies and sensitivities.
He feels that 4 months is actually about right but has to wait to see the results of the trial before changing the advice given.

The hypothesis is that late weaning (6 months) is actually CAUSING more allergies and sensitivities.

There is a huge worry right now about the near-epidemic rise in allergies in the first world, and it closely correlates to the rise in fashion for extending breastfeeding, weaning etc. They may not be related but there is a strong suspicion they are.

But overall babies develop differently so any "wean at 6 months / 12 pounds / etc " type of dogma will be wrong, IMO just use common sense - if a child is hoovering up chips at 4 mo its ready, if it can scarcely grasp one at 6 mo it is not.

The guidelines might not change but the studies and research do, thank god.

I always want to ask people obsessed with the 6 month thing what they think happens overnight on the day the baby turns 6 months.

Ding! 6 months! Food proof gut!

Human biology does not work that way and new studies suggest that food itself is what matures the gut.

I did my first weaning 14 years ago when DD was 4 months. They were just changing the labelling on baby food from 3 months to 4 months. DD is fine with regular bowel movements and a liking for Stilton since the age of 5, but won't eat green beans. She's not into street crime, and neither is my brother, who was on rusks - on the advice of the HV - at two weeks (in 1971).

Yes, but pommednoel (I know nothing about anything medical but my best friend is a researcher and is actually running one of the big studies on this! - she herself is not an expert as such, but a research fellow who will run, typically, a major study every couple of years), it is true that they think food matures the gut, but the working hypothosis is that if you ebf to around the 6 month mark, your breast milk actually introduces the food into the babies gut in a way which is limited enough not to damage but enough to expose and build tolerance, if that makes sense. My best friend told me to look out for what looks like tiny, tiny bits of bloody mucus in DD's nappy. That appears when this process is happening, in particular in relation to dairy. So I eat dairy and this is introduced to DD's gut via breast milk, and her gut then "reacts" and actually builds a tolerance. Some of the paeds current theory is that the rise in allergies is linked to introducing formula before food at 6 months. The most common thing has been NOT to ebf to 6 months (ie to ff at some point before 6 months) but still, according to the guidelines wait to 6 months to wean. This is the situation taht may be causing the massive rise. But its all stilll being researched, obviously.

Oh, sorry, it was more whatmeworry's post that mine applies to

Meh. I waited until six months to wean, because that's recommended, and that was also when they sprouted teeth.

I then spent the next four months in tears because they babies didn't think they were ready. Most of the time, they refused anything that wasn't milk. Meanwhile, the HV kept saying "they should be on 3 meals a day now in a tone".

If I could go back in time, I would communicate my feelings clearly, politely and firmly to her... Short of holding them down in a vice, and sticking tubes down their nostrils, what was I supposed to do? I would also point out that I myself was weaned at nine months, and survived to reproduce.

At ten months, they started eating.

Yes I think dd will be late by her own choice. I will start offering some baby rice or porridge in the next few weeks but as she has already trebled her birth weight on breast milk she isn't showing any sign of needing anything else yet.

There is a huge worry right now about the near-epidemic rise in allergies in the first world, and it closely correlates to the rise in fashion for extending breastfeeding, weaning etc. They may not be related but there is a strong suspicion they are.

Well as babies who are extended breastfed or exclusively breastfed till 6 months are very much in the minority in the first world, it is laughable to suggest that these are the causes of the near-epidemic rise in allergies in the first world as you suggest!

legallyblonde - I've heard that about bm too - especially for gluten and preventing intolerances to that. I have also heard that it would be better to introduce gluten at 4 months alongside bm than to introduce gluten at 6 months as bf is being stopped.

ThebigJessie - In many ways your post sums it up. Some babies benefit from food at 4 months, some not till 10 months but the majority of babies will be ready about 6 months ish. Hence the guideline I guess. Guideline. Guideline. Guideline.

I agree with those that say some babies just don't like milk- if your baby is refusing to drink milk and not gaining enough weight what are you supposed to do???

On advice of paediatrician I started solid food at 4 months with dd. She has no allergies and has been fine! She's just not keen on dairy products from cows, humans or otherwise. (except yoghurt!!!)

TheBigJessie - My DD was the same. She only started eating decent quantities of food at 12 months.

Exactly choceyes, that's why the suspicion is more, according to my friend, that the rise is linked to NOT ebf to 6 months AND waiting to 6 months to wean...

And yes, "guideline" is the key word!!!

They need to educate the professionals that 6 months is an average. Some babies are ready earlier, others later. I have 3 kids and 3 HVs and they all told me some nonsense about weaning ranging from the baby will sleep better, formula doesn't provide adequate nutrition to babies over weaning age to I am starving/depriving baby.

Ds1 was born in 2001 when the guidelines were 4 months. He was a very colicky and unhappy baby who wolfed down his first puree. I gave him his first puree at 4 months and he never looked back.

Dd was born in 2003 when the guidelines were 4 months and she was not interested until she was 7.5 months. I started offering at 4 months and did not realise it was a guideline rather than a must. The HV had given me the impression that it was a milestone like walking and that unsuccessful weaning was a big deal. When HV found out she was not eating solids, she said that I was starving her. I did not know that it was pointless weaning her at 4 months as she still had the tongue thrust reflex.

Ds2 was born in 2006 when the guidelines had been 6 months for at least a couple of years but I encountered the same attitude when I told the HV that I wouldn't be weaning yet (he was 7 months) as he wasn't ready. By then I was more confident and would have been able to stand up for myself if I was accused of starving him. Like his sister he was 8-9 months old before eating a reasonable amount.

The hypothesis is that late weaning (6 months) is actually CAUSING more allergies and sensitivities.

Given that most babies are weaned earlier than 6 months, how can that possibly be the case? And not many babies are ebf until 6 months, with mums introducing formula earlier. So I can't see how later weaning and bf is the cause.

The weaning thing gets my goat simply because people give an opinion on how I feed my child. I got fed up with MIL comments about how she ruined her kids by weaning at 6 weeks (oh yes) in a sarcastic tone when we hadnt started DS on solids until he was 6 months. However i felt quite relaxed because mum weaned me at 7 months (I was her first) and only because my aunt asked about it. Mum didn't think I needed any - she didn't follow the "rules" and life was easier for her.

I look forward to the results of the study. I'm interested because DS had a lot of food intolerances so solids were a nightmare as he kept reacting. I think his digestive system wasn't quite ready until he got older I think?

All mine have been troughers.

They all took an interest in food very early.
For the older ones it was simple - you just gave them food because thats what you did 20/18 years ago.

For the younger ones I had to hold off even though they were salivating at the sight of my sandwich and watching every bloody forkful of my dinner as it went to my mouth

DS2 got a fair bit of food from the age of 5 or 6 weeks onwards as birth mother used to give him chips etc on contact visits. I remember one meeting when he was 8 weeks old and I looked down to see his face covered in chocolate because she had shoved on in his mouth.
Nothing I could do apart from seeth inwardly.

He had the most furious, horrible eczema and I dont think McDonalds fries, sweet and crisps were particularly helpful tbh.
But I cant prove it.

It is interesting about the adults with IBS etc. I have it and I was born at a time when we were given pretty much at birth.
Most of OH's family have stomach problems and they were given Carnation Milk instead of formula.

I was under pressure to do the same thing with DD for bloody ages. I didnt know what the hell they were on about.

I think that the 6 months advice is there to try to discourage weaning before 4 months. It is part of the over cautious advice that starts in preganancy (e.g. no alcohol) as women can't be trusted with the real guidance or suggestions of moderation.

There's just so much emphasis on weaning. It confused me before having a baby, and now, post-weaning, it confuses me still.

As I remember telling myself on the way home from a HV session, "disregarding SN, how many four-year-olds have I ever seen who haven't been weaned? Or eight-year-olds who wouldn't eat at a birthday party? Answer is none. They will eat in their own time, if I keep offering it".

Weaning babies on to a good, varied, healthy diet, as opposed to Wotsits, is obviously important. But people act as if you must make a huge effort to wean your baby by 7 months, otherwise they will be surviving solely on milk for the rest of their life!

Yes, given that still bf at 6 months, let alone exclusively is so rare the allergy 'epidemic' is more likely to be linked to formula and 'early' weaning isn't it?