To think that weaning at 16 weeks is too young?

[ThePowerOfThree]

That is the advice my friend has had from her HV yesterday. I thought it was 6 months when you started weaning. My DD is only 2 months so I haven't researched it properly yet, but 16 weeks seems quite early to me.

Seems very judgy of you OP. How about asking your friend why rather than posting judgy threads on MN.

Some babies just need more even at 16 weeks. My DD did.

Even if it's against current guidelines, what has it got to do with you?

Depends entirely on the child. Mgs guidelines state 6 months however research advice in Scandinavian countries suggest 4 months as 6 months increases the risk of allergies.

My sister was advised by her gp to give my niece baby rice at 4 months as she was a very hungry baby, waking every hour at night. Baby rice at 4 pm ( a tsp mixed with milk) sorted that and she started sleeping for 4 or so hours.

It was 4 months when I had my kids and in retrospect my son would have benefited from even earlier weaning as he had bad reflux and was much happier on solids. Most of the 6 month evidence relates to wheat and when it was 4 months for rice and fruit and 6 months for wheat you still had the rusks brigade weaning with wheat so they made it 6 mo for everything so the idiots waited a bit longer.

All babies are different. I was determined not to wean my first baby until 6 months. We started at 4 months because she was ready for it. My second baby was over 6 months but I would have weaned earlier if needed.

I hate 'rules' about babies. The more you read about them, the more stressed you can get.

Oh FFS, it's not "fashion", it's the result of the most recent research, and I think the OP isn't "judging" her friend, she's "judging" the HV. Obviously the advice isn't "set in stone" but it doesn't mean that they just change it on a whim, or that you can ignore the advice because "ah sure they'll just change it again".

Current advice pretty much everywhere that I've seen is no earlier than 17 weeks. It's nothing to do with them "needing more" or "not needing more" (milk is about the most calorific thing you can give them at that age), or sanitation, or clean water, or "mother's instinct", it's about gut maturity and the ability to actually process the stuff without risking damaging your innards. And it's not about doing it as early as possible, either - generally they'll recommend earlier rather than later weaning for, eg hungrier FF babies (as the risk to the kidneys from upping bottles is greater than the risk to the gut from adding solids), or reflux/other medical reasons, but still not before 17 weeks. Personally DS1 and 2 were weaned at 6 months, didn't "rush through the purees" (did BLW), worked fine for us (they still appear to know how to eat), and I cannot see why anyone would want to enter the realm of ACTUAL STINKING SOLID FOOD HUMAN SHIT NAPPIES any earlier than they absolutely had to....

The research about allergies is very much not done and dusted, by the way. I'm sure someone on the infant feeding board like tiktok has links.

Exactly leedy!

Fucking hate anecdotes being passed round like they're actual peer reviewed science.

Just concentrate on your own baby. HVs don't advise this unless there's a medical reason. Maybe there is. Maybe not, either way it doesn't make your friend a better or worse parent than you.

I was told that the advice changed from 16 weeks to 6 months because it protected children in countries where the conditions were less sanitary and the water for weaning might not be clean.

^^ This, absolutely!

I'm not judging my friend! She is confused by the advice and wondering if she should be giving her mashed potato at this age, ad has been suggested.

DD was weaned early (17 weeks) on doctors reccomendation because she had terrible reflux and wasn't putting on weight. DS was weaned about the same age because he was ready. Neither have any food ishoos whatsoever.

All DC are different. Keep your opinions and eight weeks parenting wisdom narf to yourself.

DS1 (12 years ago) was a big boy, weighing in at 9lb at birth.
He was a very hungry EBF baby and I was advised to wean him at 16 weeks.
He is a very fussy eater - even now. Doesn't like strong flavours and certain textures.

Same story with DD, except weaned at 6 months. She eats EVERYTHING, hot, cold, spicy, veggy, meaty whatever.

May just be pure luck, but I won't be weaning DS2 until as late as possible.

All of these parenting mantras are fashion and change with new research and theories.

I wouldn't call the WHO guidelines fashionable or a "parenting mantra", which seems to suggest there's something vaguely woo about them. Their guidelines are evidence-based and they don't change them on a whim.

And OP is not judging her friend - she is judging the HV. Who I would too, if she told someone to give their 4 month old mashed potato!

Like other parents of older children above, I weaned my two youngest at four months. My eldest was weaned at three months - because that was what the guidelines said then. The advice changed to four months in 1994, I think.

All of them thrived and were fine.

Guidelines seem to be forever shifting, which doesn't help.

My first born the advice was three months (I think - over a decade now!) though I do recall it changed a few years later to the baby being older, and then I think there was another change differentiating between breast feed and formula fed babies.

Personally I feel that the baby needs to be interested in food and certainly needs to be able to sit up well by themselves, so the upper ages are suited.

If her baby is actively sat on your friends lap watching food go plate to mouth then IMHO that's a sign.

One of mine has no interest until 7 months, and he's a bit of a brute now!!!!

It's been 6 months for several years now and the change is because of new research, so I don't think it's fair to say they're "forever changing" as that implies that they keep going back and forth.

The OP is getting a bit of an undeserved kicking IMO. She only asked if 16 weeks sounded young to us, which is a reasonable question from a new mum who's read the standard 6 month advice. FWIW OP my HV advised me to wean at 5 months as girls were drinking a lot of milk and still had two night feeds. I think they show some judgement depending on th baby. Course you can always wait - if you do baby led weaning the baby will still be getting the majority of calories from milk past 8/9m anyway.

YANBU. Unless medically suggested then it is too early. It doesn't matter how long the O.P has been a mother for she isn't judging. All the leaflets given now say six months. The earliest to wean is suggested 17 weeks but it best to let the baby develop as they process food better when older.

Health visitors aren't medical suggestion.

20 years ago I followed the advice to wean DS1 at 13 weeks. DS was probably 18 months old before he ate proper food rather than baby mush.
I was told by a paediatrician to wean DS2 at 6 weeks because of sickness (now known as reflux). I ignored the advice and in fact DS2 wasn't interested in solids until about 6 /7months. Oh boy did he BF a lot though, so delayed weaning was harder IMO. He also took a long time to eat proper food.

I think the main reason people wean early is because they want to save time and effort? The presumption is that solid food means fewer milk feeds.
Does it matter in the great scheme of things? I doubt it.

I suppose there must be medical evidence to support the current guidelines but then there used to be "evidence" that margarine was more healthy than butter. And that low fat high sugar products were better for us.

15yo DS was weaned at 12 weeks, as he was described as a hungry baby by HV and that's what they recommended. I think the "rules" had probably changed by the time DS2 was born but he was weaned at 16 weeks, following the advice I'd been given for Ds1.

I was weaned at 6 weeks, which is what was recommended 45 years ago.

Strangely, all these generations seem to have thrived.

As with everything else, I think you need to do what's right for yours. I honestly don't think I could have stopped Ds1 having solid food until he was 6 months old. He would have been stealing it from others' plates

DS1 was weaned at 12 weeks 25 years ago. DS2 at 20 weeks 23 years ago. DS 3 at about 18 weeks 16 years ago. It totally depends on the child and whether they're ready or not.

They are all strapping 6 footers now who eat everything x

Crazypetlady Wed 14-Oct-15 17:29:52
Health visitors aren't medical suggestion

Im actually a qualified paediatric nurse with extensive knowledge of food allergies.

It's at the early end of weaning if there's no health issues.
I was aiming to leave it as close to the 6m as possible. My DCs decided that 23 weeks was the right time to steal and scoff food.

If there's no health need or particular interest from the baby, then I wouldn't rush to do it earlier because it's a messy faff. Bypassing the purees and getting to sharing normal food is much simpler.

Interesting that Scandinavian peer reviewed research has led to the 6mo guideline being cut to 4mo again.
I don't think it makes an awful lot of difference tbh. And I can't see how upping the guideline to 6mos has reduced the numbers of allergies and sensitivities. Even anecdotally there is a huge industry based entirely around them, and even my isn't averse to marketing these allergy/ lifestyle products. I'm aware I haven't carried out any extensive research (or indeed any research) in this area though. Perhaps it just seems as though the incidence of allergies and sensitivities is rising despite the 6mo guideline. No suggestion that there's causative link, just that I am curious about the Scandinavian decision.