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?

[tiktok]

www.tripanswers.org/answer.aspx?criteria=&tagtrail=%2Fbreast+feeding%2Fweaning%2F&qid=528&src=0 is a useful medics' evidence based short answer on allergies....the evidence that allergies are a risk with solids before six months (but after four) is very thin.

www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003517.html is a plain language summary of the Cochrane review.

There is no solid (ha!) evidence that weaning before six months (but after four) is actively harmful, but no evidence that waiting until 6 mths is harmful, either. This is an artefact of the research, really - they compared outcomes in babies who weaned before or at 4 mths, and babies who weaned at 6 mths without gathering data on ages in between.

As a general public health policy, 6 mths has all the evidence in favour of it, and it's not so much an instruction to individual parent, but an instruction to governments and other agencies to make it possible for mothers to be enabled to do this.

Individual babies may need solids sooner and some may need them later. But about 6 mths is fine for most.

There is really no evidence that babies, as a whole, need anything else before 6 mths - and no evidence whatsoever that this policy is linked with low iron in this population, still less 'huge' increases in developmental delay.

[Stretch]

Thanks stillstanding, it just looked wrong!

[tiktok]

stretch: you say "The who etc.. are saying that if you wean at 4 months, you increase the risk of allergies"

No, they are not.

No one does themselves any favours claiming that the allergy research is anything but thin.

[Doris123]

It doesn't actually. I am fully aware of this link, and read it with great interest. Open the references and trawl through them (as I did when I weaned DD). It is not great science, but a lot of theory and 'collectivley drawn' hypothesis.

Let's face it, we could all come up with lots of citations to try and 'prove' our preferred weaning prescription of.

All I believe is that sensible weaning after 4+ months is ok in the vast majority of cases, so mothers should not be as afraid as they apparrently are.

[Doris123]

Thank you tiktok - There is no solid (ha!) evidence that weaning before six months (but after four) is actively harmful, but no evidence that waiting until 6 mths is harmful, either

This is all I was ever trying to say!!!!!

[hunkermunker]

Doris, I'm puzzled as to why you're asserting your "post 4-months, weaning is fine" beliefs quite so strongly on a thread that's about weaning babies younger than 14 weeks, in some cases as young as 8 weeks?

[Doris123]

I wasn't, we started off talking about recommending nothing before 6 months. I totally agreed that 8-10 weeks was too early, but the OP mentioned a numer of different age ranges.

Stop trying to pick a fight humkermunker.

I think we have usurped this thread for long enough.

[tiktok]

Doris, you did not say this.

You really did not.

You scaremongered about iron and developmental delay.

You implied that babies who weaned at 6 mths (as opposed when you did it) only very rarely move on to a varied and full diet within a healthy time.

You made startling claims for solids being linked with developmental leaps in your own baby.

You stated your belief that the guidelines were based on conjecture and not research.

And so on...

[Doris123]

I really did, and I never presented anything else I had to say as universal fact to be adhered to by all (as some have).

I related what I had been told (about iron and slow weaning) from a GP and HV = my experience.

I did not scaremonger about iron - everyone knows (or should make it their business to know if they have kids) how important iron is to babies and kids. I was asked to 'show evidence' and I did. The fact that others mistakenly thought I was undermining breasteeding was not my fault. I too breastfed remember, I just think iron is important and was told that BM does NOT always have adequate levels. That is actually a fact - do you test your, do you really know everyone's is fine????? Ther are a number of anaemic people out there as our general diet today is so poor = knock on effect for babies.

I certaily did not mean to state that babies weaned after 6 months would not form a varied diet, but i did say that i know babies who have delayed weaning and have problems and are very fussy = again, just my experience and observations.

You don't know any more than I do that my baby didn't develop because of food, but it is a fairly logical conclusion or startling coincidence. Again, I only related it as my experience though, not the general 'way to go'.

I echo my beliefs on the flawed guidelines, but I also think people read them incorredtly. I.E. Guide, not hard and fast rule.

I am not saying everyone should wean at 4 months, just don;t be afraid to try. I am banging my head..... MJ will be through to see what all the knocking is!

[hunkermunker]

Your first post called VS sanctimonious and talked about your experience of weaning your 17wo, so I don't think it's picking a fight to ask why you have pretty consistently talked about weaning post-4m on a thread that's about weaning pre-14w.

[Doris123]

Well, I can think she is sanctimonious if i like, and you seemed happy to talk about the 4-6 month weaning debate.

Still trying to pick a fight i see....

[MilleniumHandNShrimp]

Can I just point out that 10 anicdotes do not evidence make, or 100 anecdotes for that matter.

Imagine the statement:-

"I did it and my baby was better than fine and I have heard all this stuff about low iron in babies not weaned by X, and here is a link to something saying that low iron is not good, though admitedly it says bugger all about weaning"

Well here are my anecdotes

DS1 was weaned at 12 weeks as per guidelines at that time, and has asthma and hayfever

DS2 was weaned at 16 weeks as per the guidelines at that time and has asthma and heyfever.

DD was weaned at 6 months as per the current guidelines and has none of the above problems

Just because you go out on an overcast day without an umbrella and don't get wet does not mean that you will never get wet if you try it again. It doesn't mean that you should advise that an umbrella will never be nneeded

[lou031205]

DD1 (2005) was started on baby rice at 14 weeks. She was grabbing plates & trying to take food. I was a first-time mum, asked HV who said she couldn't recommend it, but could see no harm. She ate very well, very quickly. She has Global Developmental Delay (in her case congenital) and sensory issues, but food is not one of them.

DD2 (2007) was born at 35+4 weeks. I BLW her at 7 months, having offered at 6 months and she not being ready. No food issues.

DD3 (2009) is 15 weeks. She is hungry, very hungry. She is BF. The temptation to start solids at 17 weeks is there, but having seen DD2 going from clearly not ready at 6 months, to clearly ready at 7 months, I am going to wait for DD3 to be ready.

[chegirl]

Right I have read the whole thread.

To the OP - maybe the leaflet given out by the organiser was an attempt at education. If the facilitator heard the weaning conversation perhaps s/he was also alarmed? Maybe s/he thought handing out the leaflet would help?

Weaning at 8 weeks is crap but it is not that unusual round here. There is a very deep, ingrained mistrust of HVs. Most of their advice is ignored and they are thought of with hostility.

Its a shame but TBH I am not that suprised. I always got on with my HVs when I had my DD and DS1(different borough) but have had some crap experiences since adopting DS2 and having DS3. The thing is, women round here (very high rate of very young mums) listen to their mothers and their mothers would have listened to theirs IYSWIM. So the information they are relying comes from when babies were given rusks at 8 weeks and on meat and two veg by 12 weeks.

As far as these women are concerned the new weaning advice does sound nuts. Why on earth would they wait till their babies were 6mths to give them 'real' food? I am not dismissing the new advice by any means. I am trying to get across how stupid it may seem to generations of mothers who have bought their kids up in a totally different way. It seems cruel.

My MIL was a wonderful woman with 12 children. She had 7 daughters and they listened to her and no one else. Consquently the had the most appalling feeding habits. They added salt to baby jars (to make it taste nice), put their babies on Carnation Milk, added extra scoops to bottles and weetabix, gave their babies jars at a few weeks old . There is a awful lot stomach problems and obesity within the family. I got a lot of stick for not doing things the same way.

My two eldest were weaned at 3 mths, DS2 was 4mths and my youngest I waited until 20 weeks. I did so because I didnt believe that these guidelines were set out just to annoy and upset BUT I did suspect that they were following the tendency to put out blanket guidelines to include everyone (like my SILs).

I hope that I did not damage my DSs by weaning them too early (sadly my DD died 3 years ago). I really hope not but what can I do about it now?

Ooops essay

[Bibelots]

Stretch, I don't have CAT at the moment but
would like to ask you something off board. I am not a crazy stalker lady, honest - I am TheProvincialLady normally so you can look me up. My email is e1375 underscore a at hotmail dot com - would you mind getting in touch. Cheers

[AitchTwoOh]

re the stunning physical development of doris's dd when weaned at 17 weeks, isn't that just the classic 4 month growth spurt? they all do that, mashed banana or not.

[Bibelots]

I would just like to boast add that my DS2 is not remotely interested in solids of any kind yet (7m) so he is more or less EBF still. And yet he started cruising at 6m.

I thank you.

[Ineedmorechocolatenow]

I weaned DS, who was FF, at 17 weeks, though he was on baby rice and nothing more than carrot for a good few weeks. It was right for him as he was showing all the signs that he was ready. He was a big, hungry baby and I made the decision that it was right for him. We took it really slowly and let him dictate the pace.

I will wait for the signs with DD, who I am BF. If she doesn't show any signs until 6 months, then so be it. We'll let her dictate the pace

I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone to start earlier than 6 months unless their little one was ready.

Surely it's what's right for your little one on an individual basis?

[CybilLiberty]

I agree with shineon.

Why boast your children aren't ready to be weaned any more than you would boast your children were ready to be weaned?

None of it will end up on their CV will it?

[stillstanding]

I think, bibelots, is being tongue in cheek, cybilliberty.

I think the issue is often that parents who think that their children are ready probably aren't. That is certainly my RL experience where I quite often see mothers confusing signs of readiness with normal 4-6 mth behaviour.

[CybilLiberty]

But no one is force weaning your child, are they?

[stillstanding]

No but I still feel concern for other people's children who are weaned too early. Which is not to say that I would ever interfere.

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

Babies who are weaned at 6 months have lower levels of the following when compared to 4 months

• gastrointestinal illness
• respiratory illness
• eczema + atopic dermatitis
• allergies
• ear infections
• obesity
• Asthma

There is even some evidence to suggest better motor skills.

This is not even looking at the studies that compare 6 months to less than 4 months. I can give you detailed references if you like.

WHO based their recommendation change on a detailed and comprehensive review of the effects of exclusive breastfeeding until four or six months by Kramer & Kakuma (2004). In summary, in weight or length by exclusively breastfeeding until six months a significant reduction in risk of gastrointestinal tract infection was found. This finding thus prompted the World Health Organisation to recommend exclusive breastfeeding until six months. Since then many more studies have been completed.

For the majority of healthy infants born full term with a well nourished mother breast milk alone should supply all the nutrients they need for the first six months (Fleisher, Weaver, Branca et al, 2000).

Studies have shown that as long as mothers did not become very deficient during pregnancy, iron stores in the infant are usually adequate for the first six months (Dewey, Cohen, Landa Rivera & Brown, 1998).

Similarly the infant also appears to have sufficient stores of zinc for the first six months (Brown, Peerson, Rovera & Allen, 2002)

Others suggested that those infants delayed solids would become fussier and more difficult to feed. However Cohen, Rivera, Canahuati, Brown & Dewey (1995) compared breastfed infants who had been introduced to complimentary foods at either four or six months acceptance of foods at nine to twelve months. No difference in acceptance, amount or frequency of consumption of foods was seen between the two groups across the food groups of dairy, meats, eggs, grains, beans, fruits, vegetables and tubers)

By the way...I weaned my DS at 19 weeks but he was BLW as showed the proper signs of developmental readiness. DD I waited until 26 weeks as she didnt.

[peppapighastakenovermylife]

In summary, no reduction in weight or length by exclusively breastfeeding until six months a significant reduction in risk of gastrointestinal tract infection was found

typing in the dark for some reason