Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that weaning at 16 weeks is too young?

125 replies

ThePowerOfThree · 14/10/2015 14:32

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.

OP posts:
Happfeet2911 · 14/10/2015 20:00

Scrambled eggs at 8 weeks and I'm still here!

madwomanbackintheattic · 14/10/2015 20:32

Aw, that's a shame, araminem. Grin apparently I'm supposed to be an expert on it, as I expressed idle curiousity and made a joke about the value of research. You saved me bothering to google anyway. Grin

Crazypetlady · 14/10/2015 20:42

Apologies Sharon That was an ignorant statememnt
Not all health visitors are medically trained so it is wise to speak to a doctor also sometimes.Depending on your HV.

shebird · 14/10/2015 21:03

How about somewhere between 4 and 6 months depending on the baby? Remember these are guidelines but not all children are the same. You cannot say child A and child B born on the same day will both be ready to be weaned on a specific date.

For DD1 the guidelines were 4 months, with no wheat or dairy until 6 months. With DD2 it had changed to 6 months but I felt she was ready by about 5 months. Both at perfectly healthy.

sharonthewaspandthewineywall · 14/10/2015 21:17

No worries crazy

2rebecca · 14/10/2015 21:17

Agree, my eldest was nearly 3 weeks late and my youngest 2 weeks early so not surprising they were weaned at different ages

2rebecca · 14/10/2015 21:24

No health visitors are medically trained (which usually means trained in Medicine ie a doctor.) They have nurse training then do extra training on top although many HVs are now just an extension of the SW dept and spend most of their time dealing with children on the at risk register and drug addict parents but maybe that's just Scotland. They used to do school age kids and the elderly but seem to do less and less up here.

Allthatnonsense · 14/10/2015 21:33

It's all fine!! Wean, don't wean.

Victorian babies were given gin and bone soup!!

SurferJet · 14/10/2015 21:36

Started weaning mine at 12 weeks - no problems at all. ( he's a fit heathy 16 year old now )

missymayhemsmum · 14/10/2015 22:36

Depends on the baby, thei growth curve, birth weight etc. Presumably at 16 weeks we're talking about a couple of spoonfuls of baby rice or mashed banana once a day rather than moving straight onto egg and chips! My hv told me that the advantage of recommending 6 months was to discourage people trying before 4 months, whereas when the recommendation was 4 months people would claim their baby was 'advanced' and start feeding them weetabix at 2 months to get them to sleep through the night. My DD (born at 42 weeks, 9lb baby) was definitely ready for something more than breast milk at 5 months, which is when my Hv said 'for goodness sake give her some food!'

blibblobblub · 14/10/2015 22:49

Wow some people on here are being dicks Hmm cut the OP some slack, she's only wondering.

HV shouldn't be promoting weaning at 4 months without a specific reason. My DD is 4.5 months; last time I saw my HV she gave me a bunch of leaflets, all of which talk about weaning at 6mo, as that's the current guideline.

Like someone on another thread pointed out recently, milk is more calorific than any baby food you'd be giving at 4mo. Therefore the hungry baby argument just doesn't seem to play out. Reflux issues etc, fine, that makes sense. But suggesting a bit of veg purée over calorie-laden milk? Seems a bit of a misled argument.

Onthepigsback · 15/10/2015 04:42

I think the medical stance is ghat you shouldn't wean tI'll 6 months but ghe if you 'must', nothing before 17wks as their kidneys (or was it liver?) Are not ready for that sort of metabolism and you could do damage. Occasionally this is over-ridden on doctors advice if a baby has special medical needs.

But with these things, I think it's best not to concern yourself with others parenting choices. Unless you feel your friend was put under pressure to wean by granny and might find the information useful to push back.

PomBearWithAnOFRS · 15/10/2015 04:44

My pfb was 6 weeks old when my HV told me to "try baby rice or Farleys Rusks" because he was "Big Born" and so would be hungrier... (he was 8lb 10oz born)
He is 25 soon, and never showed any ill effects from it.
By the time I had no2 son, the advice was 4 months to wean, and as it worked out he was a good 6.5 months before he would even let a spoon into his mouth. He's 21 now.
By the time my younger DCs were born (now aged 13, 10 and 8) the advice had moved to 6 months.
They all carried on drinking milk until they were at least a year, regardless of when they started eating anything else though, and are all (thankfully) in perfect health!

Senpai · 15/10/2015 04:50

I weaned at 6 months, but by the time she was 6 months I was putting cereal in her formula just to fill her up. I have a friend that weaned at 4 months.

Both our babies are happy and healthy.

DaimYou · 15/10/2015 06:59

My "hungry baby" had the purees and baby rice as well as milk. He was still having all the recommended amount of milk, but it was effectively thickened a bit

saucony · 15/10/2015 10:32

I knew this thread would bring out the "mine were eating steak and chips by 4 weeks and are still alive" brigade. Grin

CallaLilli · 15/10/2015 10:42

Well you know what they say about the plural of anecdote...

SurferJet · 15/10/2015 10:42

Well it's funny you say that saucony.........

I was weaned on mashed potato at 6 weeks Grin
True fact.

CrapBag · 15/10/2015 10:46

YABU.

DS was 17 weeks, on hungry baby milk, having full bottles and 2 hours later he would want another. I asked my (utterly useless) HV for advice on weaning and she told me I had to distract him, for 2 fucking hours until he was 'due' a feed. I was not going to leave my baby hungry so I got a very good book that went from 4-6 months on weaning and took it slowly. He loved it and was much better straight away.

Not all babies will conform to the 'official guidelines'.

sharonthewaspandthewineywall · 15/10/2015 10:50

2rebecca what do you think nurse training is? Just learning how to do bed baths and dish out tea and toast?

sharonthewaspandthewineywall · 15/10/2015 10:53

btw- there's no such thing as the 'at risk register' and hasn't been for years and years....

leedy · 15/10/2015 11:04

Well actually a very hungry FF 17 week old is a prime candidate for early weaning per "the official guidelines" - as I think I said upthread, at that age the risk to the kidneys from too much sodium in milk is greater than the risk to the gut from introducing solids. It's not a blanket "six months for every baby", it's "six months but no earlier than 17 weeks", recognizing that there are some very good reasons for some babies to wean nearer 4 months than 6 (where good reasons do not include "I was weaned at 6 weeks and thrived", "my mam said to do it", "I thought he'd sleep better", "he looked at my roast dinner as if he was hungry", "he's a big baby", "mum knows best", etc. etc.).

CultureSucksDownWords · 15/10/2015 11:04

So would some people be accepting of a baby being given solid food from a few days old? As there's all these anecdotes about babies being given food at 3/4/6 weeks old and surviving without any apparent problems? If you draw a line at X number of weeks, what's that based on?

2rebecca · 15/10/2015 11:14

OK Sharon child protection register which is what used to be called the at risk register. Nurses have nurse training, they don't have medical training ie a medical degree.
If I'm talking about someone being medically trained I mean they did a degree in medicine. I accept other people use the term more loosely.

Babytookacupwoo · 15/10/2015 11:24

Nurses often have a nursing degree though. The HV in my district are all nurses or midwives- presume the hours are better!

It would be interesting to know how many babies are genuinely so hungry at 17 weeks that they need so much additional milk they risk kidney failure. I suspect tiny, if any, and it obviously only applies to FF babies.

I'm sure that tiny minority wouldn't have their insatiable, ravenous, kidney failure inducing hunger satisfied by a few Pureed carrots.