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

'They just kind of laugh about it and say 'oh, he was a big, hungry boy' etc 'milk was never going to fill him up''

It's usually baby boys too - there's a perception among some parents that boys are naturally bigger and stronger and therefore hungrier just because they are boys. There have been blind studies done where people were given infants to take care of for a few hours who were randomly wearing blue or pink babygros - they all fed the babies in blue for longer and perceived them to be hungrier, just because they believed they were boys.

'Just do what you beleive is right for your DC is terrible advice! '

I'm having this printed on a t-shirt! You are sooooooo right. Parenting is a bloody difficult job with so much to learn - the world would be a much better place if people realised that there is no shame in not knowing what to do, or not having all the answers, so long as you take responsibility to seek out advice and ask for guidance, instead of doing what you 'feel is right' and damn the consequences. There are other people who know more than you do about certain issues and that is ok. And research and up-to-date advice exists for a reason and it's not just to make your life hell.

if a baby starts waking in the night hungry (after sleeping through for a while) then it is probably a good idea to try something more substantial than just milk, almost regardless of age.

Really? So my dc that slept through from about 2 weeks and stopped by
6 weeks, I should have given them, what, a roast dinner?

Big babies do not automatically mean they are hungrier, infact ds1 was a big baby but wasn't an overly hungry baby until about 4 months. Wi did choose to wean then as he was a terribly sicky baby and the more milk he drank, the more he threw up, projectile and could easily go through 5 complete changes of clothes a day and was sick from one feed to he next, so givin even more milk would have resulted I more sickness. My HV agreed. Ds2 was a hungrier big baby from day one and I weaned at 4 months again for similar reasons to ds1. Dd, on the other hand, was a biggish baby (8lb 14 at 38 weeks) but was not hungry at all, infact they wanted me to force feed her more bottles as she was drinking enough milk. She was not a sicky baby and weaned at almost 6 months.
I don't think I have met anyone weaning at 3 weeks, the earliest seems to be 3ish months. As with a lot of guidelines, people make their own minds up on whether to go by them or not.

'apparently 'it did us no harm' when I mentioned my crippling IBS to her the other day I got a guilty but indignant look and told to ''oh shut up'''

Nice Sorry to hear about your health issues. It's really sad that your mum can't reflect on even the possibility that the two things might be linked.

My best mate has been sticking rigidly to the guidelines about not giving her DD any added sugar or salt before she turns 1. She has had people blaitantly go against her wishes by shoving bits of cake into DD's mouth, after she had politely asked them not to Some people also seem to have a thing about babies being deprived by not being given cake and chocolate and crisps and heaven knows what else.

'Really? So my dc that slept through from about 2 weeks and stopped by
6 weeks, I should have given them, what, a roast dinner? '

Yeah, with a pint of gravy on the side!

I think that's a good point Supermans - because it didn't do immediate, obvious harm at the time, people don't want to think about a link with digestive and bowel problems sometime in the future.

To the people who tell you "my DC is 7'9" and a strapping 20 yr old - you do know that life expectancy is a tad longer than that?? No medals for reaching 20.

Also it's called RESEARCH for a reason, advice doesn't change, it improves. People don't walk into their labs and one morning go "so, I'm a bit bored, how about changing weaning advice..... " Just for shits and giggles.

And yy to the salt and sugar for

DS was happily on the 95th centile for weight at 6mo and had been exclusively BF until then - to say you can't feed milk to a big baby is tosh.

Yep, my mums just fab at parenting by the time I was 19 I was on medication for the pain and general discomfort from it. My dc don't get salt or sugar added to anything and my oldest is 8 - they're allowed general junk food on occasion but even ds' s crisps & biscuits are the baby/ toddler ranges so I feel a bit better about it!

argh - for the love of Jeff.

Milk is the most energy dense food you can give a baby, because it doesn't matter how many calories are in the food if the baby can't process them...and at 3 weeks they CANNOT PROCESS ANYTHING THAT ISN'T MILK.

If you give a baby some rice/potato/chocolate/coal it will keep them quiet for longer because it sits in their tummy doing feck all except making them feel full.

The net result of feeding your supposedly extra hungry baby anything other than milk is that they will receive fewer calories in a 24 hour period than if you stick to milk

Please don't put hungry babies on diets....it is really really dumb.

no it's only tosh to you Tall Giraffe as you only have your experience to go on.

my experience was different and I certainly wouldn't be so rude as to question yours.

Allout, sorry but your comments on all advice not changing but improving are wrong. we have had thalidomide, debendox, cot death spikes following medical advice to out babies in their tummies, these and lots of others in my life time.

medical advice given now in good faith may yet be proved wrong.

of course scientists don't do it maliciously but they are human.

the vitriol on this subject is puzzling as parenting is such a personal journey.

I know a number of people with digestive problems who were weaned early, and now digestive problems may have a link to early weaning. Think I'd rather wait till later than possibly set my child up with health problems later in life.
My hv also told me that if dd seems hungry to just up her feeds, not bother with hungry baby or faf with anything else, just give her more regular milk.

Do people really ignore decades of research by really well educated professionals on the basis that it might possibly be proved wrong one day? And that scientists are human?
WTF?
You might as well give your toddlers fags and gin then, because y'know, maybe the advice on that will be proved wrong one day. Maybe gin is the perfect drink for babies and them human scientists just have been getting it wrong all this time?

Sheesh!

My MIL would put half a weetabix in expressed milk for DH and his sinlings from around 2 weeks old. Her reasoning? FIL is a farmer, needed to get up early and couldn't cope with crying hungry babies at 2am.
Now thankfully none of them have health issues. But it does rather go without saying that my MIL, lovely as she is (now), was clearly off her box.
I weaned my 3 between 4 and 6 months. I really don't get the strictly 6 month thing tbh, is there something that magically happens on the date that lets babies digest food properly?
Not being sarky, with my first two the guidelines were just that, guidelines. Now it seems to be very much cut and dried "you will not feed them anything but milk before 6 months"

*'They just kind of laugh about it and say 'oh, he was a big, hungry boy' etc 'milk was never going to fill him up''

It's usually baby boys too - there's a perception among some parents that boys are naturally bigger and stronger and therefore hungrier just because they are boys. There have been blind studies done where people were given infants to take care of for a few hours who were randomly wearing blue or pink babygros - they all fed the babies in blue for longer and perceived them to be hungrier, just because they believed they were boys.*

^THIS x 1000. My tiny DD (who was almost 6lbs) was always hungry. I fed her on demand but actually at no point did anybody suggest I wean her early (which I wouldn't have done anyway). Possibly because she was tiny, or a girl, or a combination of both. The only people I know who have weaned early have been parents of boys (of any weight). The 'big hungry boy' thing used to drive me nuts.

I also know several adults with severe digestive problems (all of whom were weaned early since it was more the done thing years ago).

'You might as well give your toddlers fags and gin then'

Oh see now that sounds fun JOKING!

IMO, some people see 'research' or 'guidelines' as a red rag to a bull and it makes them even more determined to do it their way. It's a shame. And downright worrying in some cases.

I am reliably informed that I had baby rice/risks in my bottle from the age of 3 days because I wouldn't stop crying . Early 70s and not in the UK.

Never did me any harm don't mention the lifelong IBS.

Jesus Christ!!!!! yes advice and medical guidelines are fantastic and yes it's stupid to ignore totally those whose life work it is to research.

however it's quite acceptable for a parent to wean between 4 months and 7 months depending in their experience of their baby.

sure there are some who see research and advice as a 'red rag to a bull' but personally have never met anyone like that in my life thankfully.

not sure re the fags and booze to a baby comes in here, just silly really.

not at all silly. Your reasoning was ridiculous, it deserved a ridiculous rejoinder.

thats not weaning thats bulking and I remember my mum mil suggested I do it to make dd1 sleep 20 yrs ago I didnt, do people still do it It's not great for little stomachs imo

mum and Mil* you used to be able to buy thickner for formular (sp) farleys made it,

Noticed a row on (the dreaded) Facebook the other day re someone feeding there DC at 10 weeks with complimentary photo of child covered in food as unable to coordinate eating it.

Also bragged that she was "mummy" and knows what's best for her "bairn" and DC only has 1meal and wotsits during the day

WOTSITS!

I know of somebody who decided to feed their grandchild a jar of baby food at 5 weeks. They had already been adding baby rice to a bottle before this.

I got a lot of comments about my baby still just having milk and how it would be time to wean her soon when she hit 4 months. She was about a week off 6 months when I started and she was definitely ready.

I think the problem is that a HV might see you once or twice (and mine only came once) and give you the guidelines, or you may pick them up at a postnatal group, but you might be getting the wrong advice and pressure from friends / family.

I say to my mother or MIL what I've been told and get counteracted "I've not heard that, this is how I did it and you survived". The education aimed at new Mums needs to be spread wider to include extended family, especially caregivers.

I'm educated enough and independent enough to read the research, absorb the advice and make my own decisions, but some new mothers sadly aren't and will let themselves be railroaded by others who believe they are being helpful, because it is what they did.

Annabelle, your very rude and defensive petal! I wouldn't dream of calling anyone else's parenting ideas 'ridiculous' still there you are.

off now to chat to my 'much too early weaned' 4 kids, oldest 23 youngest 12 and check them for signs of damage.

seriously thank god the older 2 survived the 'sleeping on the tummy' advice of the late 80s and early 90s. great research there aye.

I weaned ds1 at 13 weeks, and DS2 at 15 weeks. It absolutely horrifies me now, when I look at photos of them. They're tiny babies! I left my others till 6 months, and they were sitting up, and able to eat lumps and feed themselves. It was so much easier not having to puree everything for them.