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!

No of course its not 'the essence of evil'

Its almost never necessary though, and carries documented risks.

Hunger in a baby under 6 months is best satisfied by milk. Its what they are designed to feed on, it has the right composition to meet their needs at this stage.

Well dd was born 5.5 years ago and i followed the advice that I was given at the time, and started with a bit of baby rice at about 5 months. She seemed happy enough about the idea. I never worried about it - til now!

Umm...but 16 weeks is 4 months, isn't it? 4 weeks is 1 month, 8 weeks is 2 months, 12 weeks is 3 months and 16 weeks is 4 months.

I have NHS literature in ds's baby box from 7 years ago that states 16 weeks for introducing solids.

Interesting points

BelleWatling - I agree! Far too many food issues in our country. However I don't feel weaning before six months is the cause (or of it is a factor, not the main one).

My DS is NEVER made to finish a plate of food if he doesn't want anymore. Never denied pudding because he hasn't eaten main course. We grow all our own veg and he helps to look after our patch and harvest veg for each night's tea. He has treats but they are not made into a big deal (given or witheld as bribary). He was also BF until the age of 1. He is not weighed either. I found weaning to be fun and interesting.

Surely these factors will give him a healthy food relationship?

I am absolutely not going to give my 15 week old solids!

Babies don't want food though - they have no idea that eating food will fill them up, like milk does, until they try it. How could they? They see you eating of course and want to copy, but they have no idea what you are doing or why.

Having said that I am a big advocate of true BLW - ie no spoonfeeding at all until weaning is well established and babies exploring and discovering food at their own pace (DS started BLW at 21/22 weeks yet seems to prefer being fed now)

Gosh "no baby asks for food" rather destroys the BLW theory. Also rather a strange assertion to make since following the same lines you could also say 'no baby asks for milk'

Also rather funny that seeker, who believes in following the guidelines for her children is telling other people what they mean when they say certain things and why they did certain things with their children.

I'm pretty confident that the guidelines and advice 50 - 30 years ago were to wean from 3/4 months. It has cropped up several times this 'never' in reference to the wean from 4 months debate.

wasabi - depends what you count as an 'ill effect' I suppose. I have also already said that the guidelines are a 'better safe than sorry'. I think it is important to remember that the WHO guidelines are guidelines for the world not just this country and some of the issues they are produced around may well be non-existent in this country.

Better to read things and decide for yourself about your own child IMO.

My DS dropped from the 91st percentile to the 9th - quite suddenly

He was anaemic and very unsettled

He was BF as much as he wanted

Months/weeks is closer to:

4 weeks - 1 month
8 weeks - 2 months
13 weeks - 3 months
17 weeks - 4 months
21 weeks - 5 months
26 weeks - 6 months

Bearing in mind a month is about 4 and a bit months - 26 weeks is half of 52 ie a year.

But it isn't about a healthy food relationship though, but about gut maturity.

I was weaned at four months and I have a very healthy food relationship. I do have ibs though. Neither of those facts are conclusive of anything. But still worth waiting imo.

bertiebotts - why couldn't a baby want food? Why couldn't a baby understand about food, eating and filling you up. They see you put food in your mouth, chew and swallow at least three times a day.

curiosity, are you suggesting that babies guts are different in different parts of the world?

They don't lean over and say "Give us some baby rice".

They get hungry and you give them more milk.

humphrey cobbler - could you link some research about gut maturity please? It is coming up very often and I have been unable to find any myself.

So HumphreyCobbler what would happen if you never introduced solids

Would baby eventually want food or just keep on taking more breastmilk until their toddling around

If you want to do it before six months there is indeed no-one to stop you. But it won't change my mind as to why it is a good idea to wait. And I will continue to talk about it as I think there are good reasons to wait that are not much discussed in real life.

Do you mean no-one ELSE should wait till six months because you didn't? Or that we should stop talking about why we waited in case it annoys you?

What did pre historic babies do?

Would have been given mushed up food from mothers mouth when they showed signs

Not given chunks at a predetermined age

We need more definitive evidence on this for sure

seeker - Well that is an impressive leap! I was making a point about infectious diseases, cleanliness, living conditions, quality of food, availability of food e.t.c. in different parts of the world. All those (and others) have in impact on how long it is best to wait before introducing solids and how long it is best to carry on feeding for.

YANBU this one size fits all rule is ridiculous, it all depens on the child. My SIL who has always been on the large side was weaned at 4 months as a baby he is now 2.10 years, even after giving him lots of milk he was still hungry, tummy rumbling and just woolfed down the baby rice and boiled veg. He is now a happy and healthy toddler no ill effects of this. My dd was weaned at 4 months as was recommended but i feel that i should have waited longer as she was just not ready really not interested in food and a lot of tounge thrusting.

So HumphreyCobbler what would happen if you never introduced solids

Would baby eventually want food or just keep on taking more breastmilk until their toddling around hmm

Err - Don't think I mentioned never introducing solids? Did I? I didn't mean to

Absolutely not HumphreyCobbler

I think the reasons for waiting are very valid and they don't annoy me. I would feel dreadful if my DS developed IBS in later life because he got some solids before six months.

Of course I don't think no one else should wait to six months because I didn't. I try to never make value judgements about other mother's decisions. I made a decision for my baby based on what I thought was best at the time

My argument for early weaning was as I said that my DS dropped from 91st to 9th percentile despite being BF on demand (including 2 hourly at night). He was anaemic and miserable. I was advised by a HCP to start solids

Okay it was a few mouthfuls of wallpaper paste and carrot at first but he was on three meals by six months. He would open his mouth and pant when I fed him. He settled down, was happier, put weight back on and more importantly stopped being anaemic

Roseability how do you know tht your ds IBS is connected to recieving solids before 6 months, i have IBS but i am rather a stressed person who gets nervous very easily which brings it on.

He is now in 98th percentile at aged three

he looks older as he is a big lad for his age

Can't all babies be different and have differnet growth potential, be hungry at different stages?