for thinking that: "because it always been done like that"

[3LoveHeartsAndNoMore]

just doesn't cut it as an argument?
It's funny we live in a society where new things are lapped up...but when it comes to parenting the whole ole...but our parents did or it;s always been done like that...suddenly becomes a valid argument...just because it fits the bill...I mean...wtf...lets just ignore all the new research then right...saying that though, we might aswell scrab it all, because it wold safe money...just lets plod on wihtout knowing any better then, yeah....thumping my head agaisnt a brick wall for sure, sigh....

Welliesmum - I am quite the opposite usually. I did start off with parenting books but by the time no#2 arrived I'd more or less chucked them out the window as they wound me up so much and had signally failed to make things easier first time round. If my baby cried at night I brought him in with me, if he screamed I fed him, I didn't do CC, I weaned at a time that the baby dictated becaues it worked that way. (I might add that this was most definitely not the way my mum did things when I was a baby!)The only one I kept was the Great Ormond Street book of childcare (or something like that) which didn't give opinions but basic facts about what certain illnesses might be and what the symptoms were - things where instinct (for want of a better word - I think that personal experience and common sense is probably more accurate description of what I mean) didn't always work and where I didn't have the experience to judge. I needed the information for those things.

Chillout, they're not actual snails, I think they're sausages or something, but the cheery smiles are truly sickening. Actual snails would be easier to contemplate.

I'm off shopping in a bit...I'm gonna have to go sneak a look at her book now...

OrmIrian, that's interesting (although I've not used any parenting books - I read a couple and the fact that they had all the answers just put me off straightaway), because I think that's kind of what this thread is about - judging when to just do what you feel is right, and when to trust someone else's advice - which will be different for different parents.

so generally,its ok to follow your instict when it comes to parenting on every issue other than weaning,as when it comes to that all babies are exactly the same and require solids no earlier than 6 months.

No.

It's OK to trust your instincts on stuff, but there is no "I must puree carrots and freeze them in small cubes" instinct

I don't seem to have the "I must traumatise my children by making them eat smiley snails" instinct....

Weaning practices are cultural. The WHO advice is aimed at overcoming cultural prejudices and waiting til a biologically sound time to introduce solids.

(Night all, it's the wee hours here and dd2 is finally asleep [8 month old and demand bf because both instinct and evidence say that's a good way to feed her])

what about the 'it cant be right to drink 13oz of hungry baby milk every 2 hours for over 2 weeks' instict,though?
saying that,i suppose as i wasnt bf then i wasnt following guidelines anyway.

im confused,im too pregnant to think on this level

I agree Diva - its important to be aware of guidelines but also be confident enought to use your own common sense and experience as a parent - particularly as the advice keeps shifting (generally, not just re. weaning)

I don't know anything about weaning as I haven't had my baby yet but on a more general level, my mum (who had her children in the 60s) was told by her mother that swaddling babies was a good thing to do.
Like some of you on here, she ignored what her mum said because she thought she was being old fashioned and all the current thinking was that swaddling was no good and babies should be left to wave their arms and legs about at will.
Fast forward 40 years and swaddling is once again de rigeur.
Just thought I'd chuck that into the pot

Instinct advises you in fluid ounces??? astounding....

Sazzy - My mum was adviced that bottle feeding was best for babay and better than BFing!!!!

She was also offered Thalidamide and told it was 100% safe and tested.

Also my sister was given no vaccinations, as children who suffered eczma/asthma were vaccinated in those days as it was recognised that vaccines could damage children with poor immune systems - fast forward 40 years to blacket vaccination policy

sorry - children with asthma/eczma were NOT vaccinated

Fox but back then it wasn't necessarily based on conclusive evidence, was it....it was based on myths and opinions...
read Wellies post down below...the Rhubarb one....it says it all

Thing is, it's helpful to know why guidelines say what they say. The six months weaning one is evidence based, has been around for something like 10 years (but UK government kept it quiet because it exposed their maternity leave policy as poor) and is very sensible.

IIRC, the fact is that babies are born with 'open' guts to help them absorb all the nutrients they need from a liquid - milk. The cell walls are porous to allow liquids to pass through. When they are ready to be weaned, their gut closes so it can handle solid foods. Feed a baby with an open gut solids and particles will pass through the walls of the intestines straight into the bloodstream, potentially causing allergies and other stuff I don't remember off the top of my head.

By six months, your baby's gut will be closed and they will be able to digest solids. Wean earlier, and unless you have somehow looked inside their body, you won't know if they are physically able to handle solid food.

So that guideline is sensible, easy to use and based on the best evidence we have at the moment. It's possible that in a decade's time, we may know more about the functioning of the gut in babies and it may have to be refined. But why would anyone ignore basic biological facts that we know now?

would that be six months to the day and hour of birth, and not a moment sooner? fgs use research,,but also take your babys' INDIVIDUAL needs into account!!!!
no adult is the same ,so why compare every baby as being the same. weaning, milk solids, organic, non organic manufactured cotton blah blah,,whatever (in vicki pollard stylee) lets try to see how our babies are and how they react indivdually to new experiences, as for the rhubabrb post..ok but lets be realistic, 1 in 10 million? acceptable risk,,,,or not,

rant over

I hate 'thunks' they really wind me up. We all get frustrated.

hmmm, im sure i should be offended, but too new for all the colloquialisms yet

Robbosmum - totally agree with you. Lets not all be slaves to the latest "guidelines" - trouble is that we keep being advised that various bits of advice/research are "conclusive" and then they still shift a couple of years later.

There is no such thing as "conclusive" as long as research continues, which it always will hopefully. In the meantime we listen to the advice, and then have to make a judgement based on common sense, our child's individual needs and our own experience with our previous children.

I was brought up by the Truby King method- put outdoors every day no matter what the weather, fed 4 hourly and no sooner, and left to cry for hours. (Then my mother says to me "do you need counselling then?) It's a very cruel method both for the baby and the mother.

so robbo and Fox...what do you then see as a sign of readyness to wean...I mena, afterall, Babys are all so indicdual, but obviously people do claim there are certain "obvious" signs for them to be ready right....

In my baby: ( tongue in cheek)
teeth,or teething, interest in food eg attempting to grab,and not being full after feeds...... no matter the age
or were you trying to be inflammatory, surely not on the supportive forum of mumsnet?