To consider starting my baby on solids early

[scottishegg]

Hi all I'm a mum of 3 with my youngest child being 4 and a half months old.
My son is on the 99th percentile for weight and height and is fairly advanced in his physical development.
He is currently going through a tub of formula every 3 days and is becoming very unsettled day and night whereas before he was a very settled baby and was sleeping through.

He is showing a great interest in food and isn't as happy with milk as before.

However I know that the current guidelines are not to wean them until they are 6 months old but the older generations of my family are very insistent that due to his size and his current behaviour that it may be worth introducing food within the next couple of weeks.

I waited till 6 months with both of my other 2 children before introducing food but my youngest is a very different baby and is getting less satisfied with milk, I am reluctant to put him on hungrier baby milk as it can lead to constipation in some babies and up until recently the normal milk was fine for him.
So do I just suck it up for the next 6 weeks or so or is it possible to introduce solids fairly soon also will doing this ( introducing solids) harm the little chap.

All advice appreciated thanks

Just like to point out babies can choke on puree especially later on when there are lumps. I think blw done right poses no extra risks in regards to choking and in fact helps a baby learn to control food in their mouthes reducing the likelihood of choking.

I watched a 999 show where a 10 moutn old was choking on a lumpy puree. No point scaremongering though - choking is a risk being sensible reduces that risk. Sorry I just don't understand why a weaning thread seems to always include making out blw is some ridiculous fad.

weaning after 17 weeks is not early and is perfectly safe. I have read lots of research on this and many countries advise anywhere between 17 and 26 weeks. my son was between the 91st and 98th and was clearly ready for food by 17 weeks. there is a risk before 17 weeks though so I wouldn't before then.

DS3 was a very big baby (above 90th centile) but I didn't wean until 6 months.

By the time I weaned he was feeding about 20 times in a 24 hour period, and still piling weight on at a very fast pace.

BUT he was exclusively breastfed. Formula is incomplete as a food for babies, so I'd be willing to accept the idea that weaning a bottlefed baby earlier than a breastfed baby might actually be something worth considering. Maybe there is something they get from solid food at this age that they're not getting from formula milk.

about 55 years ago, my friend was told by the doctor to feed her week old twins on Carnation milk and mashed potato. :D They were fine.
compared to that, a bit of banana or baby rice looks pretty tame

Also, weaning is a faff. It's so much easier to just give them milk. I do wonder why some people are in a rush for their babies to grow up?

YANBU... My DS is only 13 but the standard advice then was to wean at 16 weeks. Him and the rest of his year at school all look in the pink of health...

Feeding 20 times in a 24hr period Minifingers?

Wow. I would have said this was quite a strong suggestion that a baby is in need of something more than just milk tbh.

I think you will be fine if you start weaning, fine if you just try the hungry baby milk, and fine if you carry on as you are. I would trust your instinct though.

It might turn out that an option other than the one you choose would have been "best" - you will never know. Government advice isn't always right though, or isn't always right for everyone. Sometimes it changes, then goes back to what it was before.

In answer to "weaning is a faff" - I really loved weaning my dd. I don't know why, and I might be weird, but I did.

Mim-I did too, it wasn't a faff and ds was so ready for it!

The advice changes constantly, I have worked with young babies for nearly 15 years and in that time it has gone full circle 5 times! Each set of babies under each guideline suffered no ill effect as a result of being weaned earlier or later and they all developed fine. What the advice does not take into consideration is that all children develop at different rates. I would say you know your child and do what feels right to you.

I weaned early DS was taking feeds every 2 hours, huge feeds he was so bloated from all the milk we thought he would burst. I think he was about 18wks and tried him on baby rice or porridge he sat in his bumbo and grabbed the spoon out of my hand as if to say "finally". Hes almost 2 now still eats everything in sight totally healthy. Not all babies comply with guidelines.

Mini fingers dont talk bollocks

What utter horseshit mini - yes formula milk is so incomplete that babies haven't been thriving on it for years. Christ alive.

OP you know your baby, trust your instincts!

My DS is 11 years now and was very hungry at 4 months constantly wanting more and more formula. On the advice of the HV I gave him baby rice which he took to straight away with no problems whatsoever. It was only then that he started to sleep through the night!

Early weaning is linked to weight problems in later life. Don't know why!

I waited the 6 months, DPs ex weaned their child at 2 months and she's a perfectly healthy 3 year old despite us all going

I think like all parenting, where there's a grey area, trust your gut.

How can formula be complete if it doesn't contain all the same elements as breast milk? Or is it that there are elements in breast milk (dozens apparently that aren't in formula) that don't actually perform any function in the body?

And what about all the new ingredients that are in formula now - like nucleotides and lcp's that apparently support baby's immune system and eyesight in the way breast milk does that weren't in formula given to babies 15 years ago? Do they not do anything? In which case why do formula companies develop them at great expense to their research arms?

As for the view that it'd be obvious if a formula lacked some essential ingredient - for years and years and years formula was iron deficient, as were babies who drank it. Modern formulas are now much more iron rich. And we KNOW that iron deficiency causes intellectual impairment in children. Did several generations of formula feeding mothers identify any issues here before scientists did? No - because these things are subtle and impossible for the individual to identify.

I don't know why perfectly intelligent parents bleat on about how big their baby is while they discuss weaning when it's common knowledge that weaning is about maturity of the digestive system and has nowt to do with size. That said, guidelines are just that and do tend to change over the years. I wouldn't recommend feeding your 2 week old a happy meal but by 4 months, you're ok.

MiniFingers Back off, this has nothing to do with FF vs. BF.

Minifingers I'd love to know if you can tell the difference between two complete strangers, one formula fed, one bottle fed.

I can't fathom how you have so much time on your hands to hand wring about how evil formula companies are, do you have nothing better to do?

This thread was about weaning but you had to get a little dig in there about the perils of formula right?

I haven't said anything about formula companies being 'evil'

Those are your words.

And no - I couldn't tell how two strangers were fed as children, nor indeed whether their mothers smoked and ate an appalling diet during pregnancy, but it doesn't mean that these things make no difference to the health and development of babies and children.

To be honest, I find it odd that you think we should be able to spot the impact of various lifestyle choices in individuals. If this was true it wouldn't have taken researchers decades to work out - for instance - that smoking causes cancer.

Mini - I had no choice but to FF feed my DC. It wasn't what I wanted and I was devastated that I couldn't BF. However, my DC seem to be in perfect health, so now I can accept it wasn't a big deal.

oh gawd there's always one....