weaning at 3 months

[queenmools]

This thread is unashamedly judgey and I am aware that there is another weaning thread ongoing atm but I am so aghast at what I heard today that I feel the need to discuss it with you all.
I was at a childminding training course today, during break time a lady started showing pictures of her "clever" 12 week old son eating his beef stew last night! A lady on the other side of the room then piped up with "have you already started weaning?" I was expecting her to say how that was not a good idea but no she then said " I'm glad I'm not the only one" she went onto explain that her baby ( same sge) was just so hungry and therefore was ready for solids.
iabu to be so shocked that seemly intelligent women, who are training to be child minders, have so little regard for current guidelines?

San Diego I said "that's very young"

StillStaying I think the reason people are ignoring your later posts is because you're very obviously spoiling for a fight and refuse to accept that what many people did 'back in the day' was not, based on the evidence, the best thing for your children.

To be clear, it's not your fault - that's what many people still advised at the time - but it's daft to say that just because your DC don't appear to have been harmed by it then it's fine for everyone.

On the beef stew, I wouldn't judge that as much as if they fed jars. They in my opinion are truly rank --
at any age-- as an introduction to food.

culture if it's come up in conversation I've normally stuck to saying dd weaned early because even then she had hollow legs. And if asked further/ it's relevant will explain properly why. And on two occasions I've had mums with younger dc tell me theirs was exactly the same, but then go on to describe babies anything but. Basically that at about 10weeks their child suddenly went back to wanting feeding every few hours, and/or in larger quantities. And a bit of an increase in wind. Which after a few weeks they decided meant only food would do. I can't say whether that's representative of all newish mums weaning at 12 weeks though.

Beef stew is fine as a first food. No need to wade through baby rice and single carrots if you start at the proper time. Lots of iron!

No obvious effects = massive increase in levels of IBS, Crohn's, Coeliac, and other food allergies among people aged 25-40 - corresponding with the time period when weaning by or around 3 months was recommended.

No obvious effects = massive increase in levels of IBS, Crohn's, Coeliac, and other food allergies among people aged 25-40 - corresponding with the time period when weaning by or around 3 months was recommended.

Weaning around three months wasn't just recommended for those now aged 25 to 40. I'm older than that and I was weaned at three months too. In the 40s and 50s babies were weaned even earlier (3 to 6 weeks). Therefore the rise in IBS, Crohn's, Coeliac doesn't correlate at all with early weaning. For all you know, the babies weaned at 6 months may be even more likely to get those diseases. Time will tell.

As for allergies, these are higher in children today who were weaned at 6 months compared with children in the 40, 50s, 60s or 70s who were weaned much earlier. I'm not saying that later weaning has caused allergies but it doesn't seem to have reduced them.

Weaning is such a pita I don't know why anyone would start earlier than necessary!

Yes, but when babies were weaned early before the 60s and 70s it was usually far more life threatening than it is today. Infant mortality was higher and the link wasn't necessarily made. Later we had better infant foods but still early guidelines.

It's correlation, not causation, true, but it is one theory which is being put forward by researchers.

Lurked, you had the advice of your experienced GP telling you to wean at 14 weeks, as your DD obviously had some underlying issue that warranted the early weaning against the general advice.

I'm curious about those parents who decide on their own, without hcp input, to wean before 17 weeks. As someone said up thread, parents generally try to make the right decisions for their children, and I am wondering what the decision making process is that leads them to that conclusion. Especially when the NHS advice is so different.

Dh's grandfather lived to 95 smoking filterless cigarettes like an absolute trooper, it does not make smoking a healthy habit. I weaned dd1 aged 10 now aged 17 weeks on the advice of hv. My mother was anxious that she be weaned earlier. She has GI problems, these are more prevalent in children who are weaned earlier. Op I agree with you.

It is a bit like me saying I bounced around on the back seat of an Austin Maxi at 3 years old without a seatbelt or car seat and I'm fine. Luck. Pure luck.
I had rusks in my formula at 12 weeks and have terrible IBD.
Who knows if that's related?

culture that's what I was trying to do, give the reasons I'd been told by two mums who weaned at that age off their own bat long after the advice had changed from 4 months.

Yanbu.
My ex boyfriends sister started weaning at 7 weeks
She would be shoveling baby rice down his throat then looking around all confused going ' I don't know why he's doing this ! He's such a hungry baby normally' whilst he's spluttering and choking

No doubt in another 10 years time the guidelines will have changed again.

What makes you so certain?

Yes, but when babies were weaned early before the 60s and 70s it was usually far more life threatening than it is today. Infant mortality was higher and the link wasn't necessarily made. Later we had better infant foods but still early guidelines.

It's correlation, not causation, true, but it is one theory which is being put forward by researchers.

You were not talking about infant mortality though. You said that IBS, Crohn's, Coeliac and food allergies are higher among those who were weaned earlier. That isn't true at all. If anything those diseases are lower in those weaned earlier (i.e. those born in the 40, 50s 60s and 70s). i.e. there is no correlation.

My sister weaned at 3 months on the advice of gp and health visitor. My niece was a much happier child for it. She was literally starving, milk wouldn't fill her up, she was feeding every 3 hours. 2tsps of baby rice per day and she was a happier and healthier child. It's not right for every child but it's also not wrong.

Dh's grandfather lived to 95 smoking filterless cigarettes like an absolute trooper, it does not make smoking a healthy habit. I weaned dd1 aged 10 now aged 17 weeks on the advice of hv. My mother was anxious that she be weaned earlier. She has GI problems, these are more prevalent in children who are weaned earlier. Op I agree with you.

So you appreciate that you can't say smoking is healthy based on the experience of just one person but you are happy to say that weaning at 17 weeks caused GI problems based on one person.

I've always wondered if part of the reason the average age has increased is because there are lots of babies now, that years ago wouldn't have made it to weaning age. I don't even mean extremes or babies that now we'd remotely consider at risk. I'm only early 30's, and when I was born I wasn't given much chance for survival, yet now babies born in similar circumstances aren't medically speaking considered to be even unhealthy. Not to mention the actual health issues that no longer cause mortality.
I don't mean for a moment that all babies born full term, straightforward healthy nt etc nowadays are therefore all actually ready for weaning at 12 weeks and it's just the ones born with a complication that aren't. But certainly if the average age to be ready across the population has naturally increased due to medical advances, it follows that there will still be babies born that are ready closer to the average age of 10yrs ago, 30 years ago etc. As an example, I have one friend who's ds was prem 20 odd years ago, and as a result he was weaned 'late' at 6 months, and for the first year was generally considered to be developmentally behind. However another friends dd born at the same gestation with the same issues, is considered to be making average milestones by current thinking.

However I do only think that's part of the reason, and medical research into effect is also responsible. And it's based on private musings/ experience not from scientific research.

I weaned my dc at 12 weeks because that was the guidance at the time. DD has no digestive issues but ds has non erosive acid reflux, but so do I, my late dad and older brother. Dh has no stomach issues. I don't think you can attribute all digestive issues to early weaning, sometimes it's genetic.

I weaned mine at 6 months, but many people in my family were convinced she was not only ready but desperate from about 3 months. She fed hourly, woke up loads at night, was a big baby, chewed on everything. I didn't think she needed food (and tbh didn't see how a bit of puréed carrot was going to 'fill her up' anyway) but my mum and aunt and many others thought I was pretty much starving her.

So I can kind of see why people wean so early, if they're hearing that from people they trust and believing it?

Lurkedforever, in response to "And when your baby is ready according to all the normal guidelines, has a stomach distended from the quantity of breast milk they are consuming and yet they still scream with hunger and don't sleep for more than 30 minutes before waking starving, having slept well previously, despite the fact you are producing enough to start a dairy, usual wind methods don't make a difference, and the only solution the hv has had since the first milder signs 3 weeks before is 'buy the hungry baby formula as its more filling', then I think actually it's ok to wean."

In that case, I would seek a professional opinion as to what was actually happening. I don't think it's a simple question of 'is this baby ready to wean' but 'is there something happening here that I don't know about?'

Given that breastmilk has far more calories in it than any early weaning foods, it is not a solution to hunger and actually you wean because their gut has matured, not because they are hungry. Babies continue to take the vast majority of their calories from milk.

In terms of sleep as well, weaning has been shown to have no positive effect on sleep whatsoever. Waking up in the night having previously slept through is now known to be nothing to do with weaning readiness and the guidelines caution against using it as a sign. In fact the evidence seems to suggest that weaning can make sleep worse for a time and not better.

If I had a baby with a distended stomach, screaming, not sleeping, problems with win etc, I'd seek medical help anyway. I wouldn't assume it was time to wean. Some babies do need to be weaned early because of medical problems and in that case the decision is HCP led. I refer to healthy babies with no clinical need for weaning.

My baby who was sitting up and crawling at 4 months, standing at 6 months and running at 9 months needed weaning no earlier than his sister who was crawling at 6 months and walking at 11 months. They both weaned around 27 weeks (and dc1 grew like a weed, from average weight at birth to 23lbs at 27 weeks). They thrived on breastmilk which is calorie dense, easily absorbed and nutritionally perfect.

I suppose it also depends a lot on your opinion. I don't and never have seen weaning as anything to do with hunger. I see it as a developmental thing. If people think that a baby waking up lots or feeding lots or watching you eat is a sign of weaning readiness then of course they're going to be convinced that the 4 month sleep regression/developmental spurt is somehow a sign. However, it isn't and I do wonder if that's where a lot of the early weaning stuff comes from.

Getting professional advice was exactly what I did permet. And therefore I weaned her. However I'm sure there are parents like me, with babies either like mine, or ones that do actually just need more milk, who in the absence of any logical advice/ other knowledge, feel forced to make uninformed decisions off their own bat.
My hv was a fool, in lots of ways, not least for her recommendation to start pouring hungry baby formula down her. As a young first time mum, who wasn't getting any useful advice from the supposed expert, I fell back on extensive knowledge of raising other mammals, formed the correct opinion and trundled off to get a medical opinion from an actual expert. I can actually see why someone else in my position, faced only with advice from a hv that clearly isn't working, and a hv saying 'and every hcp would agree with me, I'm the expert', might end up just following advice from family and friends. And sometimes they might be right, like I was. Other times they'll be wrong. I'd prefer the message to be sent out that if in doubt, get a second opinion from a hcp. Not stick to 6 months and only listen to your hv. That itself I think is partly why people feel forced to make decisions that may not always be correct.
Many babies might not need weaning for hunger. Mine did. By 5 months she was taking as much milk as any hungry breastfed baby. And 3 meals. We never did the ice cube size portions of puréed veg, when I'd agree it's nothing to do with hunger.

My son was born weighing 10'5 lbs by c-section after a long difficult birth. He was breast fed entirely for the first several weeks, then some top up formula introduced as he was so hungry. Still hungry weaning started very gradually at 11 weeks suggested by HV and doctor. His first food was pear then other fruits and vegetables until around 6 months. He has never had any health or digestive issues. You can not compare the needs of a large baby with ones weighing considerably less.

The guidelines did change from 3 months to 4 months to 6 months over a short period in the 90's. Every time I had a child they were different. As were sleeping guidelines.

Lurked, like I said, I don't think general discussions about early weaning refer to babies who have medical issues and most people on this thread are referring to cases of babies without illness or complications. In those cases, as you say, I'd want to see an expert (not a hv or a gp btw) and I'd want to know what was causing the screaming, wind, distension, constant feeding and lack of sleep in a 13 week old baby. I would not accept 'the baby is hungry' as a reason to wean early or a reason for the symptoms if everything else (growth, weight, nappies, development etc) suggested a baby who is feeding well. If a baby is hungry, they need easily digested calories and that's available in milk. If there's something else going on, they might need to start receiving calories from something other than milk which does happen with babies who have digestive issues amongst other concerns. Those babies fall outside of the guidelines and general discussion.

Tolivebythesea, the size of a baby has nothing to do with when they're ready to wean. It's about the maturation of the gut. You see it the other way too, ooh the baby's small you need to wean early. If a baby needs calories, there are far more calories in milk than in purees so if your baby is truly hungry then if you fill them with puree or baby rice, they're receiving far fewer calories and a harder to digest product so will feed less frequently. This does not tackle any issue of hunger.

And my dc1 was 7lbs when born and 23lbs when she started weaning at 6 months. That was milk. She was thriving. Large healthy babies, small healthy babies and middle sized healthy babies have the same feeding needs. Particularly when breastfeeding, supply and demand ensures those needs are met.

DH was weaned very early (about 6 weeks) and has awful IBS, food intolerances etc. The same with my mum. So far I seem OK despite being weaned at 3 months.