To say something to this mum re. early weaning?

[Greywalls12]

Was at a baby class today, when one mum mentioned that she'd started giving her 15 week old baby rice.
No one said anything, but their were quite a few disapproving looks.

AIBU to say it has no nutritional value and she could actually be doing her child harm by weaning before 17 weeks?

Or is that incredibly rude and should stop being miss judgy pants?

I don't actually think she would care as she ignores most guidelines e.g. has baby in own room and puts on front to sleep etc.

Please do tell her that "puts on front to sleep etc." is very dangerous.

I'd say this is more serious than hurrying up the weaning.

I'd tell her, it's not just not a good idea, it is dangerous. If she does it, you can't stop her but I would feel very uncomfortable being friends with a woman who could put her child at risk like this.

www.lullabytrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/fact-sheet-back-to-sleep.pdf

At 12 weeks the babies weren't being fed cereal bowls of bloody baby rice it was a couple of spoons before bedtime. They got plenty of milk they didn't sop drinking milk because they'd had a few flakes of baby rice the night before. . The rice is mixed with the formula milk anyway.

Advice changes for all sorts of reasons, but I'm pretty sure that the advice on when to start baby rice didn't change because it will kill babies if given at 12 weeks.

did loads of babies die from early weaning or Baby rice?

I'd love an answer to this, too!

@Jellybeansincognito

Ok. I'm going to try this one more time. I didn't accuse you of swearing at anyone. I said you don't need to swear to make your point - and you agree you did swear to make a point. So yes ok, let's be pedantic. I 'accused' you of swearing to make your point (not at anyone as you initially stated), and you agree you did swear. So let's move on.

The smoking analogy I think was directed at Almosthuman, not me, so I haven't replied to it. If I thought you were capable of a rational debate then I probably would reply (for what it's worth, I think it's a totally flawed comparison) as I enjoy an intelligent discussion but sadly experience tells me that people who respond aggressively and defensively will never be capable of this. So I'll bow out now before you hurl any more insults at me

I remember reading somewhere (I don't know how true it is) that the guidelines state 6 months because they know many parents will wean earlier than the guidelines - so if they say 6 months, people will wait till at least 4 months ( ie when a baby can hold it's own head unsupported ) but when they said 4 months people were weaning even earlier because they are 'nearly' the recommended age

With weaning I sometimes you feel like you need a science degree to decide what's best, especially when different bits of reputable research contradict each other.

I read the Italian version of bounty/babycentre as well english websites and I read an article the other day saying not to rush weaning and that some DC aren't ready till 6.5/7 months.
The advise on protein is completely different too...too much protein is bad and leads to obesity apparently.

www.lullabytrust.org.uk/safer-sleep-advice/

My friend's baby doed (what was then called a cot death).

I think it would be good to text her some links to say why you are worried about he baby sleeping on its front.

Tell her a nosy friend told you about it! I could be that nosy friend.

Good luck.

www.google.com/amp/s/wholesomebabyfood.momtastic.com/tipcerealinbottle.htm/amp
Amongst other things there is a risk of them aspirating it.

It was directed at me. I, too, thought it was a flawed analogy and another thing age has taught me is that life’s too short to argue with randoms on the Internet.

ColdTatty that article is about adding cereal to a bottle. That has always been advised against, even when weaning at 12 weeks was accepted.

Old advice, as we’ve discussed....

I think it’s even worse now that because you can not argue your point you are now saying that only ‘some’ of the old style advice is alright 😅.

Baby rice probably hasn’t killed anyone no, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the terrible use of it has affected anyone stomach wise, you’d never be able to know though.

It’s not great though is it, when a baby is asking for more milk and nutrients and the parents go ah, here just have some baby rice which is nutritionally not as good but you’ll feel full up.

@Alsohuman

Finally a bit of advice I will take on board

parenting.firstcry.com/articles/early-weaning-from-breastfeeding-reasons-dangers-and-prevention/

I'm not a doctor/health visitor etc so no idea if this is accurate but it says...

"Why Is Early Weaning Not Recommended?
Breast milk is highly beneficial to your child as it contains all the essential nutrients that your child needs for the first few months of his life. There are some important antibodies that your baby will miss out on if weaned too early as well. Here are some dangers of weaning too early:

Weaning early can make a baby prone to illnesses like ear infections, upper respiratory problems, and diarrhoea.

High risk of sudden infant death syndrome.

Early weaning and allergies go hand in hand and babies also face a higher risk of developing diseases such as eczema.

Weaning too early can also cause digestive issues resulting from the formula or solid foods.

Early weaning risks a baby being more prone to childhood obesity, meaning your child will also be prone to developing the problems that go along with it such as high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease.

Weaning too early also puts a baby at the risk of accidentally sucking the food into the airway.

It can cause a baby to either get too much or too little of the right kind of nutrition."

I might tell her all that too! But then I really would be the nosy friend.

@HollyGoLoudly1 😉

Who can't argue their point, Jellybeans?

Eurgh, I’d rather deal without sleep than ever risk my baby dying from SIDS.

What a fucking martyr!

People want to ignore government advice to keep their baby safe

Which government though? Again,our government is in the minority in having the six month guideline. most other European countries say four months, as does the US. I'll post my link again. If I was a youong mum now, I'd be more worried about coeliac disease (which is horrible) and allergies, so would go with four months, which is what the newest research is suggesting. We're behind the times in the UK

www.madeformums.com/news/weaning-from-four-months-or-six-latest-research-questions-current-guidelines/

@NiLunNiLautre I agree, however @TabbyMumz had mentioned that she added it to bottles and disputed that it was dangerous. Between my dc and those I know I’ve seen the advice vary from 3-6 months (and honestly I think it depends on the baby) but I just wanted to point out adding solids to bottles was never recommended.

Early weaning and allergies go hand in hand and babies also face a higher risk of developing diseases such as eczema.

No, it's the absolute opposite. There has been an about turn on this in recent years.

Ah, OK, Tatty . I remember all the capitalized "NEVER"s in relation to that many years ago! You're right it was never advised.

"It’s not great though is it, when a baby is asking for more milk and nutrients and the parents go ah, here just have some baby rice which is nutritionally not as good but you’ll feel full up"
All baby knows is it's hungry, it's not specifically asking for more milk, which then won't satisfy the hunger. It's getting it's tummy filled and is then content. As someone else said, you don't give a full bowel of rice, it's like a couple of tiny spoonfuls, which is mixed with milk.

HollyGoLoudly1

@Jellybeansincognito

Ok. I'm going to try this one more time. I didn't accuse you of swearing at anyone. I said you don't need to swear to make your point - and you agree you did swear to make a point. So yes ok, let's be pedantic. I 'accused' you of swearing to make your point (not at anyone as you initially stated), and you agree you did swear. So let's move on.

^

You accused me of swearing to make a point, the swear word you then disclosed was not used to make a point. So stop trying so hard to be patronising. ‘let me try one more time’ actually made me laugh out loud, the desperation to patronise me is pathetic.

Why didn’t you just admit that you were wrong when you looked back and realised I didn’t use a swear word to make a point? But used it in sentence because ‘not giving a shit’ is a frequently used phrase is it not? I wasn’t exactly making a point at this stage either? I was just giving my opinion and not discussing with anyone.

I can’t believe you’re calling me pedantic after asking me to stop swearing when making a point, which clearly didn’t happen.

You’ll bow out now before I hearl anymore insults at you? All I have said is that it’s ignorant to dismiss new advice in favour of supporting advice that caused a loss of life in others. You have called me pedantic, tried to patronise me, called me aggressive and insulted my intelligence. I think you are the one with the issue tbh.

Oh I have called you pathetic in this message I suppose...

That article is a load of crap, Italian.

It doesn't state any age to define "early", doesn't give statistics or details of any research, and assumes that as soon as you give you our baby any solids you still giving milk, which is nonsense.

Also, as has been pointed out, some of its claims are outdated and newer research suggests they're wrong.

There is very little evidence to link weening at sixteen weeks to increased allergies. In fact there is very much a suggestion that amongst other things late weening (i.e. at six months) has led to an increase in allergies and it has been suggested that the guidelines in this country will likely be changed back to coincide with the rest of the world.

Also, the guideline of six months applies to EBF babies and not formula-fed ones.

The talk of risking your baby dying/links with smoking and so on is hysterical scaremongering at best.

Also, to the poster who suggested that it’s natural for babies to wake often to avoid SIDS, it’s simply not possible to know that since no-one actually knows what causes SIDS, we only know from circumstantial evidence what could increase the risks. Nobody ever suggests that if a baby sleeps through the night it should be woken regularly as part of the SIDS campaign. Imagine a mother coming on here and stating that her baby sleeps through the night and posters piling on to tell her that it was dangerous to allow a baby to sleep and she should only do that if she wanted it to die? Get real.

Also, there is a clear double standard here. People talk about early weening as if it’s the gospel truth and is putting babies’ lives at risk, yet those same people will happily encourage a poster to cosleep with her baby even though this does go against SIDS advice. Oh and for whomever wants to argue that there are safe cosleeping methods and that cosleeping cots are available, the reason why there is advice on safe cosleeping is because the professionals know that people will do this regardless, and cot companies are out to make money. It’s still dangerous, and it could equally be said that posters who advise this could be putting other posters’ babies at risk, except that doesn’t happen. Why not I wonder?

Also holly, it is possible you can have a debate with someone who might not be as intelligent as you, without you having to use it against them.

It’s rather arrogant otherwise.