to think that mega early weaning should not be promoted at a baby massage class?

[SatHereSitting]

I take DS to a baby massage class at the local surestart centre, there is about 11 of us with the eldest baby there being about 14 weeks. Last week the subject of weaning came up and one mum said she had weaned her DS at 10 weeks and another said she had begun to wean at 8 weeks due to reflux.I was the only one who appeared shocked, and the other mums started to ask questions and seemed interested, saying things like "oh really, I might try mine then"

I knew this was wrong and without trying to sound judgemental I said that current guidelines were to wait untill about 6 months as a baby's digestive system wasn't really ready before then.

The Surestart leader however said "well they change the guidelines all the time, it was three months when I weaned mine, if they're hungry go for it".The group then continued to discuss early weaning, I tried to say again that it wasn't suitable but realising from the looks I was getting that I shouldn't say any more I shut up.

Anyway today the worker gives us a handout on weaning, which states on it

'It is vital that a mixed and varied diet be well established by the age of six months'

So AIBU to think that 1. This worker clearly shouldn't be encouraging weaning which at best is ill informed and at worst dangerous.
2.Shouldn't be talking about weaning at all it's a baby massage class. And 3. Shouldn't be giving us handouts that appear to promote early weaning and especially as the eldest baby is only 14 weeks, so nobody should be thinking about weaning yet.

I'm not sure what to do, obviously I am well aware of the guidelines but some of the mums who go are not. Should I speak to the manager and make sure that the worker gives out the correct infomation next week and tells the group that early weaning is not suitable?

[hunkermunker]

I have visions of a high-kicking baby, crooning Frank Sinatra and teaching astrophysics, but perhaps I'm wrong.

[tiktok]

I dunno....Doris, you seem to have got a very individual set of leaflets from the NHS.

The WHO evidence is not 'generalisations' but a systematic review. And the fat it is 10 years old matters not a jot. Infant nutritional needs take millions of years to change!

Mothers do not produce 'skimmed milk' - milk fat quantity is not always the same all the time, but it is pretty identical across a period of time and over samples of women it is the same.

[teamcullen]

The reason the NHS gives the guidelines of not to ween before 6 months is due to more understanding about the physiological implications not the developmental stage of the baby.

When my oldest (13) was a baby, it was recommended to start weening at between 3-4 months because this was when babies begin to feel more hungry. However that doesnt mean to say their bodies can digest the food properly, no matter how pureed it is. Digestion is much more than food passing through the body.

My dd was weened at this time and had no problems that we could see. But if I had a young baby now I would wait as long as possible and definatly not before 4 months.

I would definatly speak to your Sure Start manager or one of their HVs as they should not be promoting bad practice, no matter what their personal opinion.

[AnarchyAunt]

Skimmed breastmilk?

Right

And how would low calorie (and low iron incidentally) foods such as rice and apple help your baby develop better than breastmilk? Which btw is pretty similar in fat and nutrient composition between all women whatever their diet - severe malnutrition aside.

[Doris123]

I'm sorry tiktok, I know you are the BF guru on here, and I totally respect that.

I am not trying to be unhelpful an despouse nonsense - only passing on my own experience and saying that mothers should be empowered to think for themselves when thinking about weaning a child over 4 months. I have read a lot on the topic of weaning (obviously, as I chose to do it early myself), so I am ot totally cluless.

If baby and mum are happy to exclusivley BF - then let them do it as long as they want IMO. What I disagree with is villifying those whose good intentions are shot to pieces by 'the 6 month gang', whose ideas are actually based on little fact and much conjecture. Parents need to have the confidence to go ahead and feed their children a healthy diet from when they are able, not follow arbritary rules based on a magic date.

Like my HV said, 'nobody ever died of a mashed bananna'.... Free MJ autograph to the first person to find a link to mashed bananna death - GO.....

[hunkermunker]

Doris, you've not heard of latex fruit syndrome then? Rare, but yes, people have died from banana allergies.

[stillstanding]

ROFL at "what the hell do WHO know? They can only make generalisations."

Seriously. That is genius. Think it needs to go into Little Britain or something.

[tiktok]

Doris, I know you are only wanting to share experience and to support women to 'chill' about weaning..I am not wanting to bait you, honest

But particularly in this folder (AIBU), you have to expect to be challenged when you say something that strays into territory where you are simply getting it wrong. To report (as you did) doctors saying they have seen a 'huge' increase in babies with developmental delay because of low iron and linking that (as you did) with people following 6 mth guidelines is to perpetuate really dreadful rubbish - you make a plea for 'common sense' and yet report things your HV and doctor have said that anyone sensible knows cannot be right.

I think mothers should be 'baby led' and not calendar led, too. This will mean, in the vast maj. of cases, offering solids at about 6 mths or so.

[Chessiers]

Out of interest, what are the possible negative outcomes of weaning at 16-17 weeks. The guidelines weren't changed until my three were well into the pre-school years, so the whole debate has largely passed me by.

What kind of differences in health outcomes, in a group rather than individual sense, would you expect to see between children weaned before the guidelines were changed and those weaned later?

[Stretch]

Don't you realise what you are sayig though? 'Magic Date'!

Exactly, there is no magic date. Every baby is different. Somewhere between 17 weeks and 26 weeks (and later for some babies I think?) your baby is ready to be moved onto solids. Not a sudden BAM! That's it!! And you have no way to see inside your babys gut to find out if it is ready.

So common sense = wait until 6months to remove any doubt?

[Doris123]

Incidentally, i was joking about the 'skimmed breast milk'. It was in such abundant supply (I mean 9oz from each side at one point, but I am very slight myself!)that my husband joked that it must be skimmed, as our daughter was only ever just above 50th pc. By rights, she should have been a porker.

By marked development, i mean that she just seemed to blossom. She had always been alert and had excellent tone (hence the early sitting), but she seemed to come on massivley in terms of her ability to interact and physically she grew so much stronger. I doubt I'd ever have got her there on breasstmilk alone, but we will never know.

Take issue with my 'crazy' idea to wean at 4 months, but don't take the p*ss out of my baby for having: 'composed a sonnet or threeand teaching astrophysics'.

And just FYI - it wasn't just a bit of rice and apple! Baby rice is crap IMO - she was on veggie stew, chicken casserole and fish pie by 6 months - I even gave her eggs and tomatoes at 5 and a half months. I will just go straight to jail!

[stillstanding]

Doris, I sort of get what you are saying. I suspect - although haven't met one yet - that there are babies out there who may be ready to wean at 4 months and perhaps your DC was one of them.

But your arguments are very flawed and you say very silly things.

You talk about the "'the 6 month gang', whose ideas are actually based on little fact and much conjecture" when that is blatantly untrue. The scientific research says so. It is in fact your view - that early weaning is ok - that is based on conjecture. And no one's talking about dying over mashed banana they are talking about the risks attached to the early feeding of mashed banana. Again, scientifically proven.

[hunkermunker]

Doris, you've done it now, so of course you're being defensive about it. But I do think your ideas are skewy.

I wasn't taking the piss out of your baby though, truly. She sounds lovely and you sound very proud of her - but really, you do yourself a disservice with the way you talk of your bf experience/"ability".

[Doris123]

OK, Stillstanding - I was repeating another poster's joke about the WHO - not being serious, read back....

Tiktok - fully up for the debate, hence I told you all the different things I had been told by medics and online journals etc. It is a minefield, hence I wish mothers would have courage in their own ability to know what is best, given the mess we are in on officcial guidance. I don;t think anyone should ever be villified for giving a 4+ month child a little food. It is ridiculous scaremongering.

Chessiers - i repeat your call, I too would like to know this.

Hunkermunker - you get the prize, but sadly no link = no autograph. Still this allergy would hit you if you weaned at 20 months, so no real difference to this thread.

Stretch - What do you think happens to your baby's gut in the weeks between 4-6 months?

[Doris123]

Stillstanding - show me the science. i don;t mean the NHS, WHO, whatever else web interpretation, I mean the actual science. There has not been as much as you assume.

[MoontheMightyThreadKiller]

Arrrrgghh! FGS you lot, talk about labouring a point! You don't agree with Doris, fine but she has explained what she thinks and why so why keep harping on? She is not advocating that everyone should dump the bf just that babies are different and it is up to each of us to take on board the guidance and make your own informed choices.

Sorry to rant but I hate it when get threads get like this.And yes I know you'll all have a go at me now so I'm off before you do, so there

[Stretch]

Between 17 and 26 weeks, the baby's gut seals, making it able to properly digest solid foods.

kellymom is a great site for bf and weaning. And they reference everything.

[Doris123]

For me it was. I know she was more advanced thatn any of her un-weaned peers at playgroup, but maybe because she is a genius. Who knows.

All I ever wanted to say is that weaning after 4 months is IMO and ecperience OK. The NHS acknowledge that people do it and give advice accordingly.

If it was detrimental or counter to child health, it would be an ABSOLUTE no no, which it is not. I think guidlines often have to account for the poor soul who may be given a Pot Noodle for their tea (not that this would be OK at 6 months either), but not everyone is going to lvingly prep food for a small baby, and the government know this.

I told you my story, and tried to describe the outcomes, but I must stress that I never weaned her with the intention of doing anything other thatn just feeeding her. The advancment I saw was an unknown by-product, and I tryly believe it was because she was well nourished and strong. She was my first baby, so i had nothing to campare her to but the other children.

I stand by my belief that (for the third time): 4+ months, no allergies, breastfed, simple organic foods to begin, no highly allergic foods (ok I shot myself in the foot here, but allergies no issue), then I can't see the problem.

I certainly don't think it should only be done under paediatric supervision.

[Stretch]

Is that the right way to spell seals?? It just looks wrong..

Seals
seels
ceals?
???

[Doris123]

But the infacol, gripe water, neurofen and calpol can't get in despite this right?

[stillstanding]

Seals is right, Stretch - and that's a great link. Directly answers Doris's question re what the problems are with starting before 6 months.

[Stretch]

I'm really not trying to have a go, really not, but how do you know your child hasn't got allergies? At 4 months? They haven't had any food yet, so how would you know until you weaned?

The who etc.. are saying that if you wean at 4 months, you increase the risk of allergies. Even if your baby will still have allergies if you wait, they may not be as severe. At the very least, you won't won't be making them worse if you wait.