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!

This is the problem with these threads, it can make you feel crap about a choice you made FOR THE BEST, on advice from an hcp.

For what feels like the nine millionth time.

Babies guts develop at different speeds. Their ability to digest non milk foods develops at some time between around 4 months and around 6 months. The problem is you have no way of telling whether you have a 4 monther or a 6 monther, and there is plenty of evidence that giving non milk food before the gut is developed can cause serious problems in the future.

Most babies will have developed this ability by 4 months - but ALL of them will have by 6 months. And, as there is no way of knowing which type of baby you've got, the sensible thing to do is wait til 6 months, when you can be sure. That's why all this ancedotal evidence of babies eating 3 course roast dinners at 4 months and being fine is actually useless - because that baby is probably fine. They just won't all be, and you can't tell, so why not wait?

pigletmania - my DS doesn't have IBS! I meant that if I thought he would get it because I had started solids before six months I would feel terrible

Sorry its my SIL son on is 2.10 who is on the large side not sil

oh ok rosability sorry

good point seeker

can't it depend on what you feed them rather than when though?

I haven't actually made any assertion that a baby should be weaned before six months, just said that I felt parents should listen to their children more than interpret a guideline as a rule. Also that I felt we had too many guidelines and not enough support. I have not actually been trying to change anyone's mind. I just don't think it is very appropriate to tell other people they are wrong if they have considered their opinions and made a decision themselves even if their decision is different to yours.

poisontoadstool - yes, but it is probable that a baby understands about walking and it's benefits long before they attempt to walk themselves isn't it? Understanding the benefits and the desire to learn the skill normally comes before the actual learning how to do something doesn't it? Plus it would be strange to apply this principle to walking i.e. a baby shouldn't be allowed to walk before 15 months e.t.c. It's not really all that different. I totally get the no harm thing, but that is not the same as what is best.

Surely what is most likely to be best is a parent who makes an informed decision. It is less likely to matter what the actual decision is as long as it is informed and tailored to their own situation?

I don't see why anybody feels I am telling people not to make their own decision, that is actually exactly what I am saying. If I am making a counter argument to some reason you are using to back up your decision it is purely because I feel things are not that clear, people should make their own decisions and if one view is presented the other needs to be as well.

is this a thread about a thread? did someone actually say that weaning under six months is the essence of evil? link please, cos if not this is just friday night shit-stirring.

Seriously, if someone has some research on gut maturity I would be very interested in reading it? I'm not trying to be passive aggressive in that request.

Good lord, can parents hear when their child's guts reach maturity nowadays? Crumbs.

No not a thread about a thread

my language was evocative (having a shit day ) but not really shit stirring for the sake of it

shit stirring because I genuinely want to hear others' opinion on the matter

(Hello, Aitch - fancy seeing you here )

And yes, OP - "essence of evil"? Really? Surely not - you're thinking of baby wipe warmers.

Baby wipe warmers WTF

What about a 22wo that is the size of an average 38wo (weight and length-wise), has been EBF since birth and is showing signs of being ready for weaning (sitting unsupported, attempting to lift food off plate, growth slowing down and now feeding every 2 hours [or sometimes more frequently than that])? Would be genuinely interested on people's take on this.

YANBU - but bear in mind all babies are different.

I weaned my DS, like you, roseability, following the guidlines as they were in 1999. Although the guidlines had changed when I had DD in 2005, I was prepared to wean her the same way as I'd weaned my DSs.

She just wasn't ready utill 6 months, though, and was quite happy to have nothing but breast milk untill then.

Children dont' all take thier fist step when they are ten months old, or say 10 words at 12 months; they all develop at a different pace, and people should look at their babies signs too see when they are ready. If they do, they will see most babis aren't ready untill 6 months, but hey.

Sorry the post directed at me was ages ago now but thought I would reply anyway - the newborn does not ask for milk either - it doesn't know what milk is - it cries because it's tummy feels strange, the mother feeds the baby, the baby is happy and starts to learn that milk = strange horrible feeling in tummy goes away.

In Gill Rapley's book about BLW she recommends you give a (milk) feed before you offer solids as they will not realise food fills them up at first - it's all about exploring and they will make the hunger = want food association after a while.

Also I think it's ridiculous that on these threads people always go on about prehistoric people chewing food for babies - show me one other mammal that chews food for its young.

Asana I would go the BLW route and let your child explore food safely, he/she will swallow some by accident at some point and then start to do it on purpose.

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

I agree that weaning should not start before 17 weeks but Wasabi, there is new research to suggest that this is not the case and in fact it is possibly 'late' weaning (i.e. after 6 months) that is causing obesity, diabetes and celiacs because of the postponed introduction of gluten. There is also concern that milk does not contain sufficient iron post 6 months and that this iron needs to be supplemented through the introduction of solids.

I know this is a minority view but I have read the research (and posted about it on here because SO many mothers are made to feel so guilty about their choices - Queen was on the same thread...nicer name btw!!).

For me, I find the WHO debate tedious...the WHO set breastfeeding guidelines for the WORLD. If the UK says that it is fine to wean after 17 weeks, then it directly conflicts with the WHO. So yes, I think it is important to read between the lines, be well informed (on BOTH sides of the debate) and NOT feel guilty about the choices you have made for your child.

bertie - but there is a huge difference between what a newborn understands about the world and can do, what a 4 month old understands and can do or a 6 month old understands and can do. I feel it is a bit strange to say that a baby only has a concept of themselves, effectively what that is, babies have varying levels of cognition at various stages I think.

Am not reading all the posts cos I know it will upset me..... I'm one of the older mums on here. We were advised to "wait" til 4 months to start weaning, tho I started DS at 3 1/2 months cos he was ready. Not sure how he or I would have coped if I'd had to wait til 6 months but am sure I'd have persevered and followed guidelines (and would have had a miserable few months!) . I did what I could at the time. Please don't make people feel bad who do things differently to you

Asana - I think a baby like that could being weaning.

So if WHO recomends babies aren't weaned untill 6 months, are all babies are breast fed for two years, are all the posters who are strongly for waiting untill past 6 months feeding thier babies for 2 years? I'd be really interested to know. And do these same posters advise others as strongly to breast feed as they do not to wean before 6m?

Sambo2 Interesting point. Can you link to the research - I'm genuinely interested?

I have to say that it makes me raise an eyebrow. Most people, certainly in the last 20-30 years seem to have weaned their babies sooner rather than later and most defintely haven't waited until 6 months. So it would be strange to see a rise in obesity, diabetes and the like being attributed to later weaning when it is only a minority who wean at 6 mo or later.

I'm still interested to read the reseacrh though.

Has anybody got a link to any research about gut maturity also?

Hi Wasabi - late in the day and have one eye on Jerry Maguire (), so have copied form an old thread as annoyingly the research is not online. I am sure it could be accessed somehow:

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 46:99-110. Complimentary Feeding: A Commentary by the ESPHGAN Committee on Infant Nutrition.

The abstract states that milk is a desirable goal for 6 months and that complimentary feeding should not be introduced before 17 weeks. However, some babies can not wait till 6 months (hence the raging debate) and this paper states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that avoidance or delayed introduction of potentially allergenic foods, such as eggs or fish reduces allergies" and goes on to say that, "During the complimentary weaning period, >90% of the iron requirements of a breast fed infant must be met by complimentary foods, which should provide sufficient bioavailable iron".

As for the immunity thing, "It is prudent to avoid both early (before 17 weeks) and late (after 7 months) introduction of gluten, and to introduce gluten gradually whilst the infant is being breast fed in as much that it may reduce the risk of celiacs disease, type 1 diabetes and wheat allergy".

FWIW, this was given to me by a Harley Street Paed-Dietician and a Portland Gastro-Paed (also works on the NHS!!).

And I had my first child in 1995. The WHO guidelines were exclusively milk feeding until 6 months then too. I think the red book said 4-6 months, but two minutes research would lead you to the 6 month recommendation. And that was 13 years ago!

seeker, are you on a mission to make those of us who weaned early feel worse than this thread has made us feel already? Not sure how you did your 2 mins research in 1995 way before most people had access to the internet and were at the mercy of baby books and HVs who said 4 months (and in DS's case 3.5 months) was OK.....