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. I am on a mission to stop people saying that it's OK to ignore the guidelines now because "they are always changing". They aren't. I think I got my information from "What to Expect..." actually.

didn't have that book (in '93) but shouldn't read these weaning threads cos they always make me angry. Will butt out.

As far as I am aware, despite the department of health using the 'gut maturity' argument in the guidelines, the general consensus of opinion is that the immature gut argument is weakly supported by research. I am not even too sure what the actual argument is about.

I have not been able to find significant research about 'gut maturity' and neither have my mum or sister who are both doctors and have access to research papers. I have not read anything myself in the BMJ either.

I would greatly appreciate a link to some research if anybody has one, for these reasons. Weaning is a topic which interests me greatly.

Also, as far as I am aware the current general consensus of medical opinion is that babies will be ready to begin weaning sometime between 4 and 6 months and that before 4 months can be too early and after 6 months is later than most would choose. The arguments about EBF to 6 months, as far as I am aware are based on research about gastro-intestinal and respiratory illness which I personally don't believe is all that reliable.

no-one is saying it is alright to ignore the guidelines 'because they are always changing' though are they?

They are however always changing because there is no right answer which is why I argue that parents should be supported to make their own individual and informed decisions about weaning.

if that means following WHO, the department of health or their own research and investigations. Whether it means they end up weaning at 4 or 9 months.

I don't agree with you I'm afraid Seeker. If the guidelines had been exclusive milk feeding to 6 months when my dd was born (2001) I would have followed them slavishly because I did everything else by the book for her. She was my pfb, I would not have taken any chances.

But she and the babies of all of my friends in our very middle class well educated NCT group were eating solids before 6 months.

If the guidelines were exclusively milk up to 6 months then they were not as forcefully recommended as they are now.

seeker I also had a child in 1995 and i had never heard anyone mention waiting six months to wean,i did notice that between 1995 and 1997 the labels on infant food changed from three months to four months,

It seems according to this power point that 91% of parents had given solids by four months in 1995 and it is dropping to 83% in 2000. Not sure what the figures are these days.

of Solids

I had What to Expect in 95 and I don't remember it say no weaning before 6 months. I had quite a few books which all said from 4 months and if it would have stood out if it said anything different..

DD's 1997 red health book says

"The majority of babies should not be given foods before the age of 4 months" then goes on to say "a mixed diet should be offered by 6 months."
with regard to breastfeeding it says it should meet a babies needs for "4 - 6 months"

I started mine on solids at @4 months (DS1 born '98, DS2,2000, DS3,2004.

By the time DS3 was born I was aware that weaning later was regarded as the gold standard but only managed to hold out 'til about 18weeks.

However, in my defence that was what I was advised to do at the time as my HV said that if your baby was over a certain weight it was okay to wean them if they were about 4 months old and seeming hungry, mine were good breastfeeders from the start and put on masses of weight . They seemed to find weaning entertaining and continued to also love breastmilk, until he was 3 in DS3's case(did keep them off wheat and meat 'til 6mons though).

It is not evil to have weaned your baby at 4months, HV really only used to reccommend 6 months if there were allergies in the family.

PS, my boys are not obese and don't have allergies.

I come from a family of medics, who tend to have a healthy scepticism about rigid guidelines for anything, they know that a lot of figures are plucked out of the air when it comes to medical advice. I think if my lot weren't ready for solids i would have noticed unpleasant reactions in skin and or bowel habits or indigestion.

YABU.

A child born today has an expected life span of over 80 years. Thats 79.5 years of eating solid food, if you're lucky. Whats with the bizarre obsession with trying to force mush into them as early as possible?

Babies under 6 months need milk, not food. THe facts are well known and straight forward. Leave them alone for gods sake.....

I've just started to wean my DS he is 21 weeks and I'm confused.

When it comes to age (in under 1's) do I count the weeks and turn them into months or go off calender months?? Anyone else confused over this?

Just read my thread over and I'm thinking calender months?

That means he is nearly 5 months - bit early to wean maybe - he was 10lb 7 at birth and has gone back to feeding 2-3 hourly.

He looked like he should be talking, never mind eating, at birth

can'tpoo
if your 21 week old is showing pyhsical signs of readiness.. e.g loss of tongue thrust reflex, sitting unaided , good head control, could pick up, chew and swallow a piece of food, then go for it

weaning is not set in stone to begin at 26 weeks on the nose, it is important to know the true signs of readiness

My children were baby led weaned at 6 months onto solids at their own rate. My daughter followed the 50% and my son was on the 100% centile lines and both happily waited. Unless your baby has a medical need for early solids, why bother ?

"By Asana on Fri 02-Oct-09 21:05:09
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."

Yes my son was like this and thrived on milk (every hour or two) and no solids until he was 6 months. He had zero need for solids even being a big boy.

common northener was your ds 12 lb 4 when he was born? or when he was weaned?
Am curious now!

I dont understand why when it comes to weaning, people expect ALL babies to be the same so therefore not ready for weaning till they are 6 months+! It is the only "milestone" where they are all expected to be the same!

I think that there are some very hungry 4 month+ babies about!

Both my 2 were big babies (ds1 8.9 & ds2 10 pounds) Ds1 just kept on growing up the percentiles from 75 to 98 but DS2 has done the reverse. (although DS1 moved back down when he started walking) Both BF.

DS1 was weaned at 4.5 months as he showed all the signs of being ready. DS2 is now 4.5 months but hasnt even started to show an interest when we eat and cannot sit in a bumbo yet so he is no where near ready!

I have met mums & have friends with reflux babies, all were told to wean as early as possible (4 months) even though they werent all showing signs of readiness. Often reflux is linked to an alleregy to dairy or lactose so why would the consultants suggest this course of treatment if it was so awful as some of you suggest, to wean beofre 6 months. IMHO they are the most vulnerable (sp?) babies diet wise and yet they are encouraged to be weaned as soon as possible! If the drs think it is ok in these cases then surely it is ok for the rest of our LO's???

I also had a baby in 1996 and weaned her at four months. I didn't read anything at all in those days, just did what HV/docs etc told me (maybe why I was a lot less stressed in those days!!!). And everyone else I knew weaned at four months. It was three months when my sis had her first child in 1984.

DD1 did sleep through the night when I weaned her too. Shhh. I'm the only person on MN who had that experience..

I have read this thread with loads of interest after emailing all my friends last night asking what to do. My 19 week old DD slept through the night from 6 weeks, but is now so hungry she is waking up to be fed and feeding loads in the day. She is BF only. I think I am going to keep on only BFing until she is 6 months, but it is all so confusing and the guilt factor is huge. We all only want what is best for our DC's.

it's not the essence of evil, but waiting until 6 months is current recommendations so probably what I would be doing if my dcs were little now

doesn't mean I have to beat myself up or get all defensive because I followed what was current guidelines at that time

don't really want to sound like a grumpy old granny at my age

sambo, I am really interested in that research, as I have coeliac disease and was advised to delay the introduction of gluten until 9 months for my two DC born after I was diagnosed. However, I've had a look at the Coeliac uk website and their advice is to introduce gluten naturally from 6months, and feed it regularly, as an earlier and faster introduction will lead to a quicker diagnosis (and less gut damage) if the baby is coeliac rather than to avoid the baby "getting" coeliac disease in the first instance. As there is a genetic link and it is an auto-immune disease, it's my understanding that you either have it or don't (although symptoms may not be present until a key life trigger like illness or pregnancy) and that giving gluten earlier or later won't make you a coeliac.

agree with all of the points raised against early weaning and followed the BLW route with my two younder DC, one at 22 weeks the other at nearly 25 weeks as this was when they "stole" food from me. I started on solids at 14 weeks with DS1 seven years ago though, as advised by HV at the time (and spent the first six weeks spooning stuff back into his mouth!). I don't feel guilty about that as it was what I was told by an HCP at the time, or think that the "new" advice is a cosh that I should beat myself about the head with, but I do worry about his gut health in general.

And at the end of the day, the recommendations weren't put out there for the sake of it and to annoy mums insistent on early weaning; there is firm research into it.

I don't agree that a child born today has a life expectancy of over 80 at all. All the evidence seems to suggest the complete opposite.

There has been a trend of increasing ages, but that is because those in that bracket were children in between the wars when children's health was at an all time high. Good NHS, Raw ingredients, lack of sugar and fat, very little chemicals in food etc and lots and lots and lots of exercise. THESE people are living longer, but we, with our convenience foods, machines, crappy lifestyles etc. plus higher pensionable age will not. Mark my words we'll be dying younger, as will our children.

With 22 weeks my daughter kept stuffing anything she could get her hands on into her mouth. We figured that if carpet fluff, toys and shoes didn't make her ill, it couldn't hurt to try and give her an asparagus spear to play with.

She could sit upright with support and was enjoying it. It would have been silly to hold her back another months, just to go by the book.

I have a question. People talk about 'holding out' until 4/6/whatever months before weaning, and talk about not being able to hold on that long.

Why?

DS had a growth spurt at around 5 months iirc, and was draining his bottles and needing refills. On advice from MN I increased the number of milk feeds I was giving him each day, no problem.

It's a genuine question, no criticism, I just want to understand what is happening that makes people think it's a question of 'holding off' solids?

fbb I suppose a lot of it is holding off against the advice of well meaning family, and sometimes HVs!