ok, i probably am, but the way new mothers do thing s now, and there attitude is really getting on my nerves.

[pukkapatch]

rant alert
te entire holier than thou attitude. huge genreralistaion, i know. but whats so speical about waiting till the baby is six months old before weaning that will garantee said mothers a direct ticket to heaven?
from what i recall, upping the age to six months didnt happen because of some amazing scintific breakthrough. no new data was used t o make the decision. (a mnetter showed the evidence of this on some thread.
and then the whole breast bottle thing. the ones spouting statistics at everyone, with their smug expressions. it doesnt matter. every mom does what she sees as best for her baby. we dont constantly need to have information shoved in our noses.

my eldest is ten, and youngest four, so i'm not that far away from these subjects, but, some peoples attitudes just really really get on my tits.

That is exactly the point, you can't rely solely on the guidelines because they are only a best estimate of best practice at one particular point in time. They change all the time, research is still on-going. To stick to them rigidly ignores the fact that they will change.

Obviously things like smoking and drinking too much in pregnancy are never going to be good things ever again but there are a lot of more marginal matters where things could easily change. You need a tiny hint of scepticism about these things and to use your judgement on what is best. Starting solids could be best for your baby at 5 months or 7 but almost certainly it will never be right at 2 mths and 12mths. You have to use your judgement taking all things into consideration which is why guidelines are not the be all and end all and personal experience is interesting and informative too.

Ineedacleaner - yes the guidelines could well be right but by your own argument they could also be found to wrong, in the future.

yes, niecie, but you see things that i don't see, you see zealotry where i don't. i see people saying 'this is the guideline and here's where i've veered from it because i understand that the science indicates x which is not appropriate to my situation' or 'i would always tend to stick to the guideline because that's the sort of person i am' but you seem to see people lookign down their noses at others, like anyone actually gives a toss what anyone else does. but it is appropriate for the guidelines to be discussed on MN threads becasue so many new members come here via caches on google. if the guidelines do change, then the date of thread will be there to establish that for readers.

i understand the point you're making but i don't think that zealously pissing all over new mothers' chips as pukka has done is the way to go about it. nor would i have done i when i was a new mother by the way, becuase it was a placenta they took to the incinerator, not my brain.

Aitch I think you will find I didn't mention zealots or new mothers. The argument has moved on since last night.

I was really responding to Ineedacleaner saying you should tell everybody the guidelines because they are right and then in the next breath saying that but the ones they used to have aren't right any more. I was pointing out that the ones we have now won't be right in the future either and therefore rigid adherence to them and not listening to others opinion and experiences is daft. They are called guidelines because they guide they don't dictate and they require people to use their common sense. Unfortunately, some people can't cope with grey areas but I really do think you need to trust people to use their own judgement as you say we don't all lose our brains the minute we give birth.

Surely you can see that people should be allowed to tell their experiences without being told they have got it wrong. Nobody needs to be told that - if somebody gives an opinion you don't agree with, say thanks very much and ignore it. No harm done.

Guidelines are just that - there to guide you. Of course, it makes sense to be aware of them and the reasons why they are there. If anybody chooses not to follow them, then that's their choice. We all do things differently but fundamentally we are doing what we believe is best for our children and families. My dd is 8 and the guidelines were to wean at 4 months, which I did. Dd2 is ten months and the guidelines are now 6 months. I was happy to wait until the six months as she was not showing any signs of needing to be weaned. However when I visited my HV (at 4 months) she advised me that I should start weaning. I questioned her as per the guidelines and she said that babies needed to get used to using their toungues, cheeks, mouths etc!!!! There are guidelines but there are also those who choose not to follow them......I don't think it really matters as long as baby and mum are happy and relaxed with what they are doing. I understand that for first time mothers the whole process of bringing baby home is daunting - there is so much to learn....I struggled with dd1 but experience played a huge part when dd2 came along. I was and am aware of the guidelines but I choose to do what I think is best for my baby.

Ineedacleaner - yes the guidelines could well be right but by your own argument they could also be found to wrong, in the future.

Yes they could change at no point did I say that they wouldn't I am well aware that dd will look at me aghast when I tell her the way things were done in the same way we do about our parents.

My point was that all this "it never did me any harm" is such a weak argument and that guidelines do change, the guidelines have changed dramatically in our lifetimes. Yet for some reason the OP and others on this thread they are condemning those who choose to follow the current guidlines while spouting this my children are older/ I have more thatn you rubbish following with the never did them any harm nonsense.

There are some guidelines like smoking/drinking whatever will never be acceptable again so who exactly is to say that weaning below 6 months is ever going to be acceptable again. So WHY choose to ignore these guidelines???? They are based on facts and statistics whatever anyone wants to say in the same way smoking in pregnancy became a no no.
I am pretty sure you would pour scorn on the mothers 20,30, years ago ignoring the smoking warning saying the same , look never did me any harm that people use for early weaning or whatever it is at the time.

So yes guidelines do change but it is both rude and a little naive to say that you are continuing early weaning (sorry not trying to pick on early weaners) becasue that guideline will change, so did eating liver, smoking, drinking etc etc.

To quote you earlier.... "Is it so hard to grasp that it could just be possible that the weaning age, breasfeeding statistics that are being rubbished by some are actually right."

They are statistics, who says they are right? "Lies, damn lies and statistics" and all that.

All I am advocating is a small but healthy dose of scepticism. Of course some guidelines will never change smoking for example. I said that earlier but even in the last 6 months there have been changes on the guidelines on drinking whilst pregnant. First you shouldn't drink anything and now a glass or two a week is OK. Different set of stats, different message. It is on-going research - maybe one day they will get to the real truth maybe they won't. Personally, the new guideline is one that I would chose to ignore.

Niecie, there often is a healthy dose of scepticism.

Like this, wrt weaning age:

Weaning age generally got younger once formula companies and baby food manufacturers got in on the act. Prior to infant feeding being such a commercial malarkey, babies were routinely left to nine months or older before being weaned. Once money could be made from feeding babies, large sums of money, the weaning age dropped through the floor.

Or this, wrt formula guidelines:

Powdered formula isn't sterile. Formula companies don't want to make this well-known, don't want to put warnings on the packs about Enterobacter Sakazakii, or how to make formula up so that all trace of this potentially fatal bacteria is eradicated from babies' feeds.

I'm sceptical about a lot of stuff. But I don't see that guidelines for weaning will see babies get much younger, truly. And unless formula manufacture alters somehow, I can't see how they'll get shot of this bacteria either. So I can't see formula mixing guidelines getting less stringent.

Of course, you can wean earlier. You can mix formula with cold water. But on a thread where someone's asking for guidance, it seems people think it's OK for them only to get experiential advice that doesn't fit with guidelines and not that that does.

I post this without being smug and in the full knowledge that I regularly do things that I'm sure aren't best practice. But I do think that infant nutrition is important and I make no bones about that.

*
Pukka, sorry, I've only gone and put information on your thread now.

Hunker, you're shoving information in people's noses again.

I want to come back later and write more, because this point about guidelines changing is important, ie, if the feeding/weaning guidelines change, why should you trust them? How can you tell what is a "good" guideline and one which will be in the bin by the time you have another child?

(As it happens I don't trust them and go back to read the original research before accepting advice, but I'm very lucky to have access to that sort of info - not everyone does.)

Try reading The Politics of Breastfeeding by Gabrielle Palmer. It will incense you.

spooky ! have just started reading it......

i am already burblingly cross

i just keep thinking that Neicie and i are reading a different website... i think of MNers as being highly sceptical of guidelines.

and she did say zealots. and it did piss me off.

Niecie, I think I'm also reading a different website from you. I just dont' see the things you describe.

There's a difference between "scepticism" and "rejecting ideas because they're different from what you yourself are doing". The latter isn't scepticism, it's a self defence mechanism, and I've no problem with that, dog knows, we all need defence mechanisms to get through the day.

The problem arises when people present their defence mechanisms as advice. "I weaned at 12 weeks and my children are healthy, so this 6 month guideline is stupid" is a good (common) example.

It's not scepticism, it's not taking things with a pinch of salt, it's just someone protecting themself because they don't like the idea of possibly having done a harmful thing.

Which is fair enough because life would be unbearable if we had to go around flagellating ourselves for choices we made in the past, which were good choices at the time.

But it really muddies the waters when people on here are trying to discuss new information.

Hunker - I wouldn't worry about Pukka, I think she has done a runner. She isn't going to offended by a bit of research.

I don't know if 6 months will change, I wouldn't be surprised if they imposed a time span rather than a date i.e. 5 to 7 mths. I don't think it will get much later either because if left much later, it raises a whole set of other problems.

But there are other areas that might change for example the type of food you offer first off - maybe ban baby rice or something - I mean what is the point of the stuff, it looks like wallpaper paste and tastes similar.

There are still huge amounts to learn in an area of research which is ethically very difficult to study.

And no you don't sound smug, you do sound more measured.

I completely and utterly agree with you all, provided you are from London. First name beginning with K.

Niecie, weaning age has been later though - 9-12m. I agree re baby rice though

Rhubarb, what?

London? You from London?

I finally did it!!!!!
I found the thread with the smug poster on it.
It's this one, and it was califrau at 19:08

Ahem....

Wot?

...

Is there room for both of us on here?

We go together like rama lama lama ke ding a de dinga a dong, imho.

Can MN towers please add a smug smiley?

Am I too late? Did I miss the party?