to not really understand why people are weaning already?!

[nightowlmostly]

Hi, my DS is 4 months old. My nct group were round the other day and are all talking weaning already! The babies are all around the same age, some a little younger. They mentioned baby rice, and the usual pureed carrots and stuff.

I'm a bit confused, as I thought it was 6 months that you should wait until, and didn't realise that so many people started so early. I have read a few things on here about how early weaning can lead to long term health issues, and specifically about baby rice being nutritionally worthless.

I just wanted to ask for your opinions on this issue, and was wondering whether the anti-baby rice thing was possibly one of those things that people get all worked up about on here but nobody cares in RL? Is it the norm to wean at 17 weeks still, regardless of the guidelines, or am I just in a weird bubble where people do this?

Not trying to start a bunfight, as I've seen this debate end there before, just honest opinions. We will be weaning in a couple of months anyway and have no real plans yet, so any advice generally would be great too!

When I had my eldest the 'official' advice was 12 weeks, my second the advice was 16 weeks (although she was more than happy on her milk until 6 months so I left her till then), third child was 4 months also and fourth child the recommendation was 6 months. My 5th child is now 15 weeks and I hear that the WHO is reviewing the guidelines once again as studies now suggest that breastfed babies can benefit from weaning from 4 months.

My advice is listen to your baby, don't rush but don't assume that guidelines are the be all and end all.
In the 13 years between my first and my last babies I've had 3 different sets of guidelines! Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons out of my 5 children the only ones that have any allergies,food sensitivities and digestive difficulties are the 2 that were weaned at 6 months. Even guidelines can't predict everything.

I'm sorry, but your OP feels a bit like you want everybody to say you're a great mother for following the guidelines and these other NCT women are all ignorant sheep following each other without checking with the official line first. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got. Your wide-eyed confusion doesn't quite ring true.
FWIW, DS was weaned (BLW, if you please, because I'm a wonderful mum, obviously) at 5 months and a half.
In short, YABU. If you want to judge, come right out with it. You don't need to dress it up.

MissPants - in the last 18 years the guidelines have changed once, from 4-6 months (from 1994) to around 6 months (from 2003).

I think all babies are different when it comes to weaning ages. The guidelines may say wean at 6 months but babies are frequently ready long before then. I tried sticking to the guidelines with DD, and weaned her at nearly 6 months.

DS was completely different. He suffered badly from reflux and couldn't keep milk down. We were advised by the hospital consultant that weaning might help to solve the reflux, so we weaned him at 4 months. He was completely ready, it solved the reflux immediately. He loved his purees.

I had noticed that, at around 3 months, he was starting to show interest in food, trying to grab a scone I was eating, much to the amusement of the lady sitting at the next table in the cafe :o Incidentally, I was weaned at 3 months, as it was common practice then.

I don't get the 'not satisfied by milk' argument for weaning earlier. If you feel it's right for your baby I'm not going to argue individual cases - but breastmilk AND formula both have far higher calorie content and nutritional benefits than small amounts of weaning foods recommended for babies under 6 months.

If they're actually starting to lack anything it would be iron, so giving baby rice to fill them up is pointless - you're giving them LESS nutrition not more.

How about all babies are different? Some have a need to be weaned earlier, some later. Its your job as mother to look out for the signs which may indicate this (which for me were constantly hungry as milk not cutting it, trying to grab food etc). Anyone who says 6 months is the rule set in stone can have a from me.

What catus said.

OP thinks she's better at this than the silly mums at anti natal club.

I remember a study making the headlines a year or two ago saying that leaving weaning until 6 months can increase the risk of allergies.

I was advised anywhere between 4-6 months, she was grabbing for food by about 14 weeks but I managed to hold off until about 18 weeks because I was worried about her gut. Her first food was a strawberry she grabbed from my bowl and shoved into her mouth, she was ready.

All kids develop at different rates, there is no one size fits all. You can't compare a big baby with a small one or an early crawler/walker with a late one, they all have their own individual and very different needs.

There's no way I would have been able to wait til 26 weeks, she was crawling over a month by that stage and starting to walk along the furniture, she never stopped moving for a second, she needed and sought out food, milk wasn't enough.

Parents have to know their kids and use common sense, you can't follow advice if it's obviously unsuitable for your child and their specific needs.

All babies are different, but the 6 months is a good guideline because the signs are nothing to do with gut maturity which most babies should have achieved by 6 months.

Plus, I'm in the lazy mum team. Milk is on tap and easy to provide, snacks aren't. Mine didn't really get into properly eating meals until at least 10 months, and despite all the dire warnings from people about how it would stop him wanting to eat/stop him putting on weight, mean he won't sleep, he's an absolutely average sized boy, who eats anything put in front of him (including strong tastes and odd textures) and who only started sleeping through a couple of months before he was 2. Babies do what they do, and I really don't think that we have as much influence over it as we'd like.

Oh, and mine was also an early mover - walking unassisted at 8.5 months - milk is the highes calories (short of fudge - and for me, not for baby) that they can get.

The current advice is to exclusively BF til 6months.... not many exclusively BF that long anyhow....without solid food coming into it.

In my perfect ideal parent world of.. not having been there yet! I "DECIDED" I woulnd't wean mine till 6 months

however at 4 milk just didn't fill him up, he was still ravenous after massive milk feeds, it didn't touch the sides, he was like how we'ld be if we only had liquids, cluster feeding wasn't cutting it, a bit of babyrice mixed with BM satisfied him, and to our shock when we offered it he grabbed the spoon and shoved it in his mouth! we just had to re-load - was freaky seeing a 4 month old doing that but he obviously felt the need for some stodge!

anyway why does it bother you? if you don't need to bother with it yet with THIS DC then good for you! its not like they're putting rusks in 3 week old's bottles!

If you look at the OP, you will see that I am asking for people's reasons for weaning earlier than recommended.

I am not claiming to be some amazing mother, I ended up ff and don't beat myself up about it, I put DS in his own room at 11 weeks and he started to sleep much better straight away. So I'm not just following all guidelines blindly, and accept that different things work for different babies.

I just don't get the benefit of early weaning, and wondered if it is as common as it seemed from the small sample of people I know. From the answers on this thread it would appear that it is, so thanks all for answering my questions! I know to expect some vitriol posting on this board, but really, I don't think I was being that offensive, trying to put my query in a nice way!

I was recommended by HV to wean DS1 at 16 weeks, he was on 3 meals a day within a week so really needed it. In 2006 we were told 4-6 months for weaning. I know why they say closer to 6 months - so people don't wean too early (like 10 weeks as someone has started a thread about on here today I think)

DS2 was about 5 months and wasn't that fussed, was on 3 meals a day just before 6 months.

Neither of my DSs had baby rice other than the 1st 2 or 3 days which was mixed with formula anyway.

Every child's different so I wouldn't be judging them TBH.

Have no idea why people have to be so rude to the OPs when they are asking a perfectly reasonable question (although it sounded a bit judgemental the way you worded it!)

bobbledunk that is a total myth that children who are on the move more need solids earlier. Milk has more calories than baby rice or vegetables or any other weaning food.

My DS2 was crawling at 21 weeks and cruising at 6 months, he had nothing but BM until he was 26 weeks.

"If you look at the OP, you will see that I am asking for people's reasons for weaning earlier than recommended."

because it's NOT necessarily earlier than recommended, the recommendations extended to 6 mnths by the time that DS was born, but since then most HCPs now seem to have gone back on that and advice BETWEEN 4 and 6 months, just no sooner than 4

You can only follow guidelines if your child complies, my child hadn't got the memo that it had been extended to 6 months at the time he was an infant. I had every intention of waiting till 6 months but he didn't last that long

you don't know that you'll make it to 6 months, that is what you are aiming for but you can't quarentee it'll work out that way

Fair enough, you're right, I don't know what will happen. So many things haven't gone how is imagined they would so this might be no different! It's good to hear some reasons why, so thanks all.

How I imagined, even!

WWWWHHHAAAAT youre asking why people dont 'stick to the rules' with weaning whilst you've put 11 week old in their own room, against cot death advice. Hypocrite much?!

I haven't read through all of the posts so forgive me if this has already been said but,...am I right in thinking that the guidelines were set at 6 months by The World Health Organisation and are more for the benefit of babies ( and to encourage mothers) in third world countries where they need to be bf for as long as possible, due to poor food/ dirty water etc (or something along those lines).
Both of my children were weaned at 4 months and were well on their way by 6 months. If I had another baby now, I would be inclined to ignore the HV and wean at 4 months again. But everyone should do what they feel is right for their baby, whether that's weaning at 3 and-a-half, four or six months.

Just do your own thing and ignore the rest. All babies and all mothers are different.

At about 18 weeks DD took a cheese sandwich from my hand and did her level best to eat it before we snatched it away. We lasted one more week before giving her baby rice (as well as milk, obviously) because she wanted to eat everything, and not in an exploring-with-mouth way. Two weeks after that she was on sweet potato and carrot, and by 6 months I was making her her first curry

She is a very good eater, no problems whatsoever, and at 2.7 still loves a bit of spice in her food

On the other hand, my friend's son went until about 7 and a half months with no solids at all. He's fine, too. All babies do things and are ready for things at different times [shrug]

I started dd1 at 4 months. Figured that the drinking milk til her tummy was so bloated, puking it up cos her body just couldn't take in any more milk and yet still being hungry was a pretty good sign that she needed something more! A little bit of baby rice and she was spool much happier and was tucking into three meals a day by 6 months cos that's what SHE wanted.

Dd2 was five months took the fact that she was swiping her sisters
fruit and shoving it in her face before we had a chance to even blink as a sign that she was pretty ready, she didn't eat three meals a day
Til about 8m she just liked trying a bit here and there and have g the option.

All babies are different and the criticism can be hurtful when you are just trying to do what's best for your child. I don't believe depriving a child of food they desperately want and having them unsettled for weeks just because someone who hadn't even met your baby says so is any better.
All people can do is go by their baby and be as age appropriate as possible in what they give :)