To think giving babies solids under six months is not the essence of evil

[roseability]

Surely this is a worldwide recommendation (therefore a recommendation and not a set rule for all babies)

If we are talking about what is natural, wouldn't a mother have waited until baby was showing signs e.g. reaching for food, not satisfied on breastmilk/formula alone and then given the baby mushed up food from her own mouth? Not suggesting we should do this but the baby led weaning is surely an idea that can be adapted into the whole weaning process rather than an absolute rule?

I appreciate the idea behind avoiding allergies. However if you have no family history and you are avoiding wheat/dairy etc then what is wrong with a bit of baby rice and fruit/veg?

Is this recommendation more to stop babies under six months getting inappropiate foods? To avoid people mashing up highly inappropiate things and giving it to their babies?

Co sleeping is now challenged by FSIDS but many, many mothers do it. Breastfeeding is promoted as best but many mothers FF because it suits them and their babies best. Has this become yet another rule to which if you don't abide you are somehow less of a mother?

My own story - My DS was exclusively breastfed until 4.5 months. His weight wasn't in the right percentile and he was hungry (started waking a lot at night, reaching for food). My HV suggested starting solids. He had only baby rice and fruit/veg until six months. I never force fed him (he opened his mouth like a bird for it and then just stopped when he had had enough) and gave him lumps/chunks as soon as he was able. I loved cooking for him and he had a whole range of home cooked food. He is now 3.5 without any allergies and a great eater.

Of course some babies getting solids under six months will get allergies but I just feel this is putting pressure on mothers and stoppping them going by their babies' signs.

I know I am going to get slated but I am genuinely interested in mumsnet's opinion on this. Do I feel guilty for breaking the rules - of course! However I am worried to do things any differently with number 2 as DS is such a great eater!

bump

YANBU.

YABU the 'I did it with mine and they are fine' argument doesn't cut it with me.

Are you considering giving your 15 week old (IIRC) solids?

Not that I think giving food before 6 months is the 'essence of evil'. There are much worse things, but still.

I agree, i weened when my children were ready (before 6 months) but then again when dd1 was a baby we were told to wean at 4 months.

I weaned DS1 at 16 weeks. That was recommended at that time, and he was very ready for it.

No allergies etc. He was bottle fed, so I don't know if that makes a difference

You are right on one thing. BLW does negate the need for puting an age on when to start weaning.

Babies will be ready for weaning at different ages of course, but the research shows that ALL babies will be ready after 6 months and that NO babies are harmed by delaying until then. The reverse is not true.

So, - it's a bit of a no-brainer really.

I think you need to apply common sense, like with any guideline. They tend to make them inflexible so everyone can understand - the drinking alcohol when pregnant would be another good example. There is no good evidence that the occasional alcoholic drink is going to do the baby any harm but by recommending no alcohol they play it safe. DS1 was more than ready for solids from 5 months and had no problems weaning from then (not that I told the health visitor) whereas DS2 wasn't ready until 6 months.

Same as Jamie - weaned DD at 16wks, as was recommended at the time and she's fine (now 6yrs).

DS was weaned at about 18wks (he's now 1yr) as he was absolutely starving (FF too!).

I agree that these rules are to give you an idea of when you should be doing things - go with your instinct and what your baby's 'telling' you.

How do you know Dunder? Did he tell you?

You fed DC1 under advice and clear direction of medical HV staff.

DC are not necessarily the same... don't worry about it, if DC2 can hold out to 6m, it's consistent with medical advice/recommendations.

I was fed before 6m, again under medical supervision, but my sister was not. My DS was fed a few weeks before the 6m timeline, but only on baby rice, and I don't think he had any fruit till after the actual 6m guide. he wolfs everything in sight... He did have a few isshoos with carrot to begin with tho.... had to remove that from the menu for a while.. but tried them again later, and it was fine.

best advice? Wait and see...

If a baby is showing the TRUE signs of readiness for food, there is no issue giving solids before 6 months, but i doubt many babies do show these signs before 5 months or so and certainly never at 8/10/12 weeks

i thikn parents can be shocked by how frequently a baby needs to feed , whether breast or formula and therefore think the baby is not satisfied, where in fact, they are having a growth spurt

the safest , most nutritious and calorific food you can give a baby for the first 6 months or so is milk

some babies are ready at 21 weeks, some at 29 weeks. most are ready around 26 weeks

it is not the essence of evil, but you cannot see inside your baby;s gut to see if it is mature enough to cope with anything other than milk, your instinct can't tell you that. knowing if they are displaying the real signs of readiness for food is key

showing an interest in food and wanting more milk and night waking are not reliable signs of gut maturity

YANBU

Not at all.

The 6 months thing is a guideline, it is generally agreed weaning should and can begin sometime between 4 and 6 months.

It is a better safe than sorry guideline.

People believe so many things which are incorrect about what will happen to babies weaned between 4-6months. The research about the effects of 'early weaning' being the main one. The phrase 'early weaning' refers to babies that are weaned before 16 weeks not babies weaned between 4 and 6 months there is a poverty of research about the effects of weaning between these ages.

One of the arguments is about introducing solids changing the way in which the gut processes iron. Babies in this country should have adequate iron stores to last beyond 12 months so this is not really an issue and formula feeding, being that it is based on cow's milk (also an allergen), changes the gut in the same way anyway.

ds was ready for weaning because one day he leant forward, took a bite out of the banana in my hand and ate it. He was 5 months and also massive (12lbs 4oz) with some neck control at birth. I figured he was ready then! But in the month leading up to that he obsessively stared when I ate and made movements with his mouth, I didn't assume he actually wanted to eat, but was just practicing like the whole "standing" while supported thing, they're not really standing just getting into a bit of practice for when it naturally happens! As baby's mouths naturally open when something goes near it it's not really difficult to get something in it that doesn't have much more consistency than milk and have them swallow it!

massive at birth I mean!

all children are different and you need to go by what the need/tell you

dc3 was on solids at 16weeks - she had slept through 7-7 from 12 weeks and then was waking up night after night

we tried giving more milk, but cant force a baby to drink

we started on rice, then veg and she went back to sleeping through

I have been a nanny for 18 yaers and rules keep changing, when i started it was 4mth, then went up to 6+, then back to 4mths now back at 6mths

go by what your baby wants

when i told the health visitor what we did, she disagreed, and basically told me off

i ignored her, but if i was a first time mum, i probably would have thought i had done a dreadful thing

As with all matters of parenting guidelines, it's a matter of weighing up risks and benefits. There are some very strong benefits to co-sleeping - ones that need to be weighed against the very small but potentially very grave risks. There are risks and benefits to not using armbands while swimming, using dummies, there are some benefits to formula feeding in some circumstances, etc etc - it's a minefield.

However

Name me ONE benefit of weaning before approx 6 months - there are NONE.* Not one. Not for parents. Not for babies. It's messier, more expensive, more time-consuming, there are no benefits for the baby who is getting all his/her nutrients from milk. And there are risks, some of them (like allergies in those weaned after 17 weeks) are controversial, some of them (like obesity in adulthood) need to act with other variables, some of them like tummy upsets and constipation are minor and some of them you may dispute but these are real risks that have been measured by a multitude of studies and that WHO, the Department of Health and others have deemed robust enough to guide policy.

As a nation we are seriously fucked up over food - seriously - over-eating, obesity, junkfood, food waste, eating in the street, no appetite control, allergies, the nutritionist and supplement industries etc etc etc. And shovelling unnecessary food into tiny babies is both a symptom and a cause IMHO. I am not excluding myself from this - I am a massive over-eater and cannot leave anything on a plate and I think the fact that I was weaned at 10 weeks, on chocolate at 20 weeks and had tea in a bottle by one year did not help. I just want my DS to have a healthier approach.

Sorry - got a bit overwrought on that last bit. But not wrong I think.

*medical reasons aside.

Good post BelleWatling

Eating in the street? My god. Where on earth do you live?

bellewaiting - what about that a baby may be wanting food? Why is that not the very biggest reason you could have for starting weaning your child? Strange to ignore your own baby's needs/requests because a guideline says so.

If you push a baby to wait past the time they are ready that is not better for the baby or the mother. We have too much advice, too many guidelines. People need to listen to their own babies much more and we all need support as parents not rules.

Also strange for other people to tell people on MN their baby was/wasn't ready for food which, I know you are not doing here, but which happens very very often.

If they are hungry you give them more milk.

No baby asks for food, if they are hungry milk will fulfil their needs.

I would have weaned my babies before six months if they had shown all the signs of readiness, as neither of them did, I waited till six months. It was no hardship to them OR me.

The perceived benefit to the parent of early weaning is the baby sleeping through the night, and the mother not having to feed so often.

"I had to wean him - he was so hungry" means "I weaned him because he was wanting milk more often than I was prepared to give it to him"

Curiositykilled you state that there is a poverty of research on the effects of weaning between 4-6 months. Fine, agreed.

And we know that there are no ill effects when weaning begins at 6 months.

This leads me to the conclusion that the safest thing to do is wait until 6 months - although obviously if your baby starts grabbing food out of your hand and eating it you can probably go with the flow. As several have mentioned the whole BLW concept does rather negate the whole "are they/aren't they ready debate?