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!

A friend of mine who a HCP attended a conference recently where they said that WHO were probably going to change the guidelines back to 17 weeks as they think that later weaning is leading to fussier babies and possibly more allergies! ?!?!

Seeker, 1995, six months? General advice alround was four months where we were. HV and so on. I don't remember it being an "issue" that you would hear about or read about and subsequently research about.

Anyway that was pages back.

It's a fantasy that children used to have a marvellous diet and now it's all gone to pot, apart from wartime. Early last century the recommended diet for early feeders included five portions of f and v per week and a lot of bread and dripping, bread and milk, and dumplings and marmalade. And that's a middle class family that would buy a housekeeping book.

Daisy I said "world health experts" because that's how they're always referred to in a very distant way. Still, you should have more confidence in yourself. "Mothers know best" shouldn't be undermined by the boom in child/mothers who need more guidance.

"alround"

all round of course

bigbluewhale..that's interesting. I had wondered if babies were becoming fussier now they are weaned later.

Aparently, research in 1999(ish) showed that the more tastes babies were exposed to between and and six month, the happier they were to eat a wide range of tastes later on.

My own reshearch with my 3 DCs would indicate it's true.

I'm pretty sure loads of mums who wearned at 6 months will declare that as a load of toash regrading thier baby, though.

"I know several babies weaned for reflux & it didn't help" is no different than "I know several babies weaned early and they don't have allergies".

It is helping my baby.

Lynette - That is exactly why I have recently begun offering a taste of what we are eating to DS. Cooked without the salt and the oil, for now.

bigbluewhale - whats the betting it was a Cow&Gate sponsored conference? [cynical]

I weaned my FF dd at 3.5 months. she is now 20 months nearly, and fine.

But I read that if a baby is hungrier its far better to offer milk because milk is more nutrient-dense and appetite satisfying. Whereas baby rice or fruit are less dense so giving them these probably wouldn`t make a difference regarding how much the baby wakes up?
On the other hand, many women say that their baby slept better after weaning, so hard to say whats best. It could be that the growth spurt was coming to an end anyway and that is why the baby began sleeping better again.

I had the opposite problem. I got all excited to wean DD at 6 months but she refused all food! I never told anyone at the time but I was still exclusively breastfeeding at 8 months. I tried all the time to offer her different food but she just pushed it out with her tongue. She was not interested. She is 3 now and still seems to live on air!

YANBU AT ALL

I have 2 DS's.

Weaned 1 at 4 months as this was 'the rule' back then (2002) and my 2nd DS at 5.5 months as they rule was 6 months (2007).

My boys we over 20 odd pounds, can't quite rememeber exactly, but they were whoppers and towards the end of DS2's 5 months he was so hungry and was feeding ever 2-3 hours some days and one day I just fed him and he ate it and he slept so well from then on and seemed a much happier baby.

Baby rice not tea or chocolate by the way!

I can't see the sense in people saying they only need milk until 6 months, you know your baby. What dramtically changes at 6 months and 1 day?!?!?

They are both happy, healthy and well within normal weight range.

They will probably change it again some time soon.

And linking early weaning to junk food, being overweight and having food issues is total scaremongering and utter bullshit.

I think some on here are trying to make out that early weaning is to blame for thier own food issues when really they need to look at themselves and get a grip not blame their own mothers!

Guidelines are just that, they are not rules. The most important thing is to feel happy and confident in your parenting style and not to worry everytime someone passes judgement about what you do.

Unfortunately us women do seem to like to know what's best when in comes to parenting styles and then like to tell others exactly what we think.

At the end of the day, happy mothers make happy children and whether you give solids a couple of weeks earlier than the next person really doesn't matter.

I hate that phrase, 'happy mothers make happy children'.

Its just not true.

Do all women with PND have unhappy children?

What if I am only happy when cavorting naked with a spliff in one hand and a bottle of gin in the other, whilst strangers snort coke off my stomach, and my baby is in her room with the door shut and loud music on to drown out her cries? Is she going to be happy just because I am?

The fact is that giving solids too early carries risks. Its best to feed only milk until six months and then introduce a varied diet.

bellewaiting - 'early weaning' is weaning pre 17 weeks. It is incorrect to describe weaning between 4 and 6 months as 'early weaning'. The research pertaining to 'early weaning' is about weaning pre 17 weeks.

I don't think anybody should be telling anybody else how to wean their babies on MN having never met the family in question. People should be supported to make informed decisions for themselves whether that means to wean at 4 months or 9 months.

One way of making an informed decision about weaning is to follow current guidelines, another is to read the research yourself, another may be to speak to child health experts. None of these things are 'wrong' and there are no 'facts'. There are guidelines, research and opinions.

The trouble I find with these weaning threads is the young weaners tend to say 'never did mine any harm' and the 6 month brigade say things that make early weaners feel like child abusers. Often both sides offer up things as fact, there is no fact in this argument on either side. I really believe parents should make informed decisions.

Oh, I have not found any research papers (or properly looked yet) but speaking to my sister and mum yesterday, they believe the 'gut maturity' thing referenced in the guidelines is to do with colonisation of the gut with bacteria used in digestion.

They both state that they believe in breastfed babies this is likely to occur much earlier than 17 weeks as they are exposed to more bacteria much earlier than a formula fed baby who is having everything sterilised for them. They say if solids were introduced before the colonisation took place then the solids would not be absorbed and the baby would have diarrhoea but that this would also speed the process of colonisation. Babies can be fed on solids from birth and survive. The gut maturity argument is completely separate from the allergy argument and from the gastro-intestinal/respiratory illnesses argument e.t.c.

All the issues surrounding weaning age are complicated. They are not all inter-related and the guidelines are based on opinions which have been guided by many different pieces of research into the various processes and effects of weaning. The processes and effects are not fully understood and the guidelines are a best guess.

Going back to something Poisontoad posted

"I am sure it has been posted before that the weaning age used to be around 9 months, before the commercialisation of formula milk. "

This wasn't true weaning onto solids as in georgian/victorian times they used to give babies something called pap from birth.It was made from bread/flour and water/ milk and sometimes flavoured with curry leaves.

and to be honest a large percentage of babies didn't survive in those days so it's hardly a good comparison

caraco

I think some on here are trying to make out that early weaning is to blame for thier own food issues when really they need to look at themselves and get a grip not blame their own mothers!

That is one of the truest things ever said on mumsnet

There are the current guidelines. Then there's what the health vis says, what your mum/MIL/woman next door says, then there's what you think is right. You consider the former, dismiss some of it and do what you think is right for your baby. Its hardly evil as it was normal during the last two generations.

My DS (now 4) and DD (now 2) are great eaters. DS was like a bird at 4 months, and had baby rice and pureed fruit, he is a very good eater, and his food was complimented with milk. My DS on the other hand was not interested in being weaned until about 5.5 months. I decided to take each one in their stride, and so far have not looked back, they are confident eaters and will now try anything!

To say that early weaning means giving your child less milk is a naive comment!

Early weaning does not equal a full nights sleep!

"Queen"
I LOVE the phrase "Happy mothers, happy children"
I had PND, but I have a completely different take on that phrase.
I think it means that women should not always have to put other people before themselves. So if they want to work, they should. If they want to spend a bit of money on themselves, they can. If they are a SAHM and want to put the kids in a nursery for me-time (like I did), they can. It means that women should not be judged for their choices because putting the baby first is not always the best thing do do. There needs to be a balance. Then the mum is happier than she`d be if she sacrificed herself. And then the baby is happier.

So what are the actual current guidelines then?

When DS was born it was wait until 6 months. DS was pretty late, he didn't actually eat anything other than breastmilk until about 8.5 months (when he wrestled some meat off me, the bugger), but from about 6 months he had been given tastes of bits and pieces but had shown no real interest in eating. He was still growing nicely and was healthy on just milk.

We skipped the puréed/baby rice phase complete and he was on real food from then (had teeth and was willing to use them, on me if necessary).

Department of health

WHO guidelines

DS (4.5 months) just sucked dry half a slice of tangerine and cried for more.

Is that one of those signs of "readiness"?

Hi curiosity - I don't really understand why that point was addressed to me - sorry . I didn't realise 'early weaning' had a definitive meaning and used it in the sense of pre-6 months. I am not telling anyone when to wean.

Moonlight McKenzie I don't essentially disagree with you on the diet thing - see my first post after all! Just think it's complicated and contested.

sorry belle - the first part is for you about 'early weaning' the rest is general.

My mum weaned us at 3 months because that is what her mum had done with her, even though all her friends were adding baby rice to their children's bottles from 6 weeks ( this was in the 70's)

So are we (70's kids & earlier) all full of allergies and morbidly obese? No

So why is it such a crime nowadays to wean before 6 months!

I also agree with you moonlight on the not living longer... My Nan (God Bless her Soul) said to me when I was in my teens that she thought my generation & those to follow would not be living as long as hers due to all the chemicals that surround us (not just dietry) and the cancers that they cause....

...anyway back to the debate