To be a bit shocked that people are still weaning their babies really early?

[bumbleymummy]

I'm not talking about within a few weeks of 6 months and I know that some babies with reflux are weaned a bit earlier under the guidance of a paediatrician - I'm talking 3 week olds being given bottles of baby rice/rusks because they're big/hungry/whatever. I just can't believe that some people still think this is ok and will argue about how milk just wasn't enough for their baby at that age

I have never said science doesn't know everything!

who would? anyway as you obviously have trouble reading posts or perhaps understanding and retaining info I can't bother with you anymore.

just please please stay in your lab and don't engage with mothers in real life.

debate over for me.

thebody ignore her, she posts aggressively across the board on all topics.

oh before though yes I am proud Annabelle, not of my self and my achievements but most of all I am proud of my dd who is now healthy and back at school full time.

so ending on a positive note.😋 for me.

youStay, absolutely true but a tad sad really isn't it.

thebody you should know that medical advice changes for the better. That it is more reliable than it has ever been before in the history of mankind. That unlike in the 70/80's it is now evidence based in a way it has never been before.

The whole idea that because the advice changed since 1980 it can be ignored as it will probably change again is total rubbish.

At one time 'scientists' claimed the earth was flat...then they did the research and found it wasn't. Are you proposing that all science is therefore flaky and we may yet go back to the earth actually being flat?

At one time hcp's claimed that tummy sleeping was safer...then scientists researched it and found that back sleeping was safer. Unless there is major change in physiology this advice is never going to go back to the original.

At one time hcp's claimed that you should move babies that cried a lot onto solids really early....then scientists researched it and found that the best way to get calories into babies is (surprise surprise) BM (with FM coming a very very close second)...and that the answer to a hungry baby crying is to feed them more calories...not less digestible calories. Until someone makes a new slow release super baby food this will continue to be the case.

Advice can change...but when it is based on solid research it is very unlikely to change in anything but small subtle ways.

To whoever said about babies in SCBU - they often are put on their fronts. It's safe because they're on oxygen monitors etc, so if they even started to have respiratory difficulties the nurses would know immediately. My friend's baby was weaned onto back sleeping before the monitors were taken off, and certainly before they could go home.

Is it an area thing? I just asked my mother ( in 50s) and grandmother ( 70s) and they both said they never would have fed a baby anything except milk before 4 months, and thats very earliest. They also said that they never knew anyone amongst their friends and family who fed tiny babies 'food'.

My grandmother ( born during the war), said she apparently was fed milk almost exclusively until 2 years as bf was a free source of food when money was tight and rationing high. Baby formula was also never rationed and babies 0-12 months received separated milk coupons so most mainly had milk until this age to save the other food for elder children or adults.

My baby record book from 1980s under a picture of me in highchair states ' x age 23 weeks and 2 days sampling first meal - banana and pear'

In answer to question, I have no idea why you would want to feed a 3 week old food. At 3 weeks mine had only just got into a good rhythm of consuming milk properly, and it seems like adding yet another daily thing to prep and do

Re weaning, yes it is sad that people take advise from their friends and family over advice from medical professionals. It's downright wrong if HVs are still giving the wrong advice. A family member who was weaned at 6 weeks (70s, on HV advice) has various digestive problems. Not every one will, it's a risk not a certainty, but a risk I'd rather spare my children given I'm lucky enough to have them at a time when the relative risks are known. I'm sure those here who weaned before 4 mths did it with the best of intentions, but the evidence is pretty clear it increases various risks.

I've read as much scientific info as I can find around 4-6 months vs 6 months. It seems to me that the evidence is divided and there are probably risks and benefits either way. There are some big studies going on now, so hopefully in a couple of years we may know better what is optimal. For now looking at the evidence I felt confident weaning when my children seemed ready (sitting up completely on their own, picking up food and putting it in their own mouths) as long as it was over 17 weeks. I tried to put them off as long as possible by giving them toys and cups to play with in the high chair. But still both started around 5 months.

for the last time...I NEVER SAID IGNORE MEDICAL ADVICE...., I said medical advice changes and I am sorry to disagree with you ICBINEG but of course it will change and evolve in all matters concerning parenthood as that's progress.

we only know what we know now with the best research.

we don't yet know what will come to light tomorrow.

It's funny though catkind because the NHS website states those readiness signs you just wrote and said they were very unusual under 6mo. But I'm the same as you: I've started 5 months on second and first was a preemie and he was exactly the same age. I think that's why it's hard for lots of us to wait for the 6mo mark (over and above the medical side) as most babies are really interested and wanting to eat food before 6m.

Exactly Thebody

And lets not forget the quality of research varies,much is utter shite or over inflated.

My two DC's were born early/mid 1980's and the advice was weaning at 3-4 months. We were told never to lay babies on their backs because of the risk of choking.

thank you MrButtercat and MylittleFinger...

at last commen sense and obviously a mum who was there in the 80s and not just reading about what they think happened as they weren't a parent then.

Apologies, I haven't read it all, just the first page.

When I had my first (now 18), I was told to wean her at 12 weeks which I did, and she seemed delighted as she was a hungry sort. 3 years later with my second, the guidelines were 16 weeks. She wasn't in the slightest bit interested and wouldn't take anything until 6 months. In fact she still isn't interested.

Anyway, whenever I read these threads, it makes me feel really guilty because I've probably damaged poor DC1 irreperably by weaning her so early, but those were the guidelines in those days, honest!

I've been going back and forth about when to wean DD.

She has reflux which anecdotally ateast can slow the process down so I don't want to wean her when she already needs extra iron etc but there is a history of diabetes and food intolerances in my family.

I'm generally a follow-the-rules kind of person but I am starting to find that there may be reasons to wean earlier

possible diabetes benefit from not waiting til six months

It's such a confusing minefield. I wish someone would speak to me as an intelligent adult and explain the pros and cons of when you wean because, after all, each baby is unique and I understand that it's a guideline because of that. But being left to trawl the Internet is a bewildering prices at times and HV I have spoken to either trot put the rules or in one case refuse to discuss it because DD is only 16.5 weeks old.

of course they were, only a prize prat starts with blaming parents for their adult ailments IF the parent was following advice at the time.

geeez.

Doodle, whatever you do will be "wrong", depending on who you speak to! Parenthood is a minefield, I tell you!

I know, thebody - but don't parents always blame themselves? Or is that just me ... ? I know I'm pretty hard on myself.

The diabetes study isn't a good reason to wean early. It's based on 2000 children who were already pre-disposed to diabetes, 53 of whom developed it. a) that doesn't have any implications for the general population who are not pre-disposed and b) 53 isn't a number you should be basing health policy on.

I'm a bit at the Royal College of Paediatrics linking to the Daily Mail rather than the actual research.

And more regarding food allergies/intolerances

even the experts can't agree!

See in that article scientists in Sweden found an increase in problems with gluten when advice changed to six months and that these problems decreased when it went to four months.

I think it might not be as clear cut as some people think. I'm certainly going around in circles trying to decide as DD is a much earlier developer than her big brother.

Oh, have you got the paper to read noblegiragge? I'd like to read it. I suppose it makes sense to study just the vulnerable ones - a population wide study might not reveal the link. I wonder how they defined vulnerability? But you're right. One study should not change health policy. But I don't think they are, are they?

thebody I said "Advice can change...but when it is based on solid research it is very unlikely to change in anything but small subtle ways."

and you reply "I am sorry to disagree with you ICBINEG but of course it will change and evolve in all matters concerning parenthood as that's progress."

I am unclear how you think your opinion is actually in disagreement with mine?

I just think its a minefield. I wish I could get better advice rather than having to sift through these sorts of reports and not knowing what to do with them.

Advice has been wrong in the past and it often take a long time for a large body like the NHS to change its stance as they rightfully need to be cautious. I just wish someone would treat me like an adult and give me better information to help me make my decision.

One important change coming in medical advice will be the specificity to your particular child.

In the future you will know if your child is susceptible to SIDS or not. Then the sleeping advice will be 'do what ever the hell you like it makes no difference' for some children and 'for the love of god keep them on their back' for others.

I was already receiving non-standard weaning advice as my family has a history of nut allergies....so hopefully soon the advice on all issues will be similarly so much more focused!

YANBU. The advice now is 4-6 months taking cues from the baby, can they sit up unsupported, interest in food etc.

The people who now give solids at less than 4 months have no reason to think this is sensible unless under medical supervision - a paediatrician not a HV. Even Heinz etc put 4 months plus on their packaging. I'm certain if they didnt have to do this they wouldn't in order to make more cash from parents.

Solids are a faff, a hassle to make if the baby isn't ready so you have to mush everything to buggery and incredibly messy. It's so much easier to wait until the baby's ready. No idea why people think there's some glory in weaning early - it's like people who move a baby to a forward facing car seat when they are only a few months old.