Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

weaning - what are your views????

94 replies

mummy2t · 02/06/2008 12:25

Hi all, my little one is 15 weeks and i am not going to start weaning until 6 months. after talking to alot of different mums i have have found not many of them share my view! some are definately going to wean at 4 months, some i have met have considered weaning BEFORE 4 months and i was told on one woman who has been giving baby rice at bed times to try and get baby to sleep through!!!????!!!! bubba is only 3 months old!!!! i am quite shocked that there are so many people that just ignore advice thats out there, thinking they know better. What does everyone think about this??

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
MrsBadger · 02/06/2008 12:34

May I suggest cursory glance over this thread for a general snapshot of MN opinion?

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 12:44

I believe that, for the most part, a mother's instinct works best on this one. I think it depends on the baby, and I think that baby's weight is more important than baby's age.

From my own experience, there is no way my DS1 would have been able to hold out until he was 6 months old before starting solids. He was 10lb at birth, an extremely hungry baby and by the time he was 4 months old he was over 18lb and the milk was definitely no longer enough for him (he stopped napping and sleeping properly and was generally unsettled). Weaning him then was absolutely the right decision for him. He was a much happier baby and developmentally totally ready for it.
However, my ds1 is a less hungry baby, but still a big boy. I plan to wean him at 20 weeks, so I can ease him in gently.

One problem I find with waiting until they are 6 months old (apart from the fact that big, hungry babies will struggle to wait that long) is that you then have to introduce a wide range of foods, very quickly, to the baby's diet. By starting to wean slightly earlier you can start with very small 'tasters' etc and introduce different food groups very slowly, gradually moving up to 3 times a day.

So, after all that, my opinion is I think anything from 4 months is fine, if the baby seems ready/seems to need it. Obviously if you can hold off longer, then do.

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 12:55

By the way, I fully expect the majority of MNetters to disagree with me...

ivykaty44 · 02/06/2008 12:58

Can someone explain what happens to your dc if you wean before 6 months?

Genuine question? Why is it so bad to do so?

mummy2t · 02/06/2008 13:00

My little one at the moment seems totally satisfied on his 6oz bottles, and is sleeping well. I will hold on until 6 months if he will let me.
People i have met just seem to think that them eating solids will settle them more and the baby will sleep better. I understand like you say if you have a bigger baby that is still hungry after milk that you would need to start weaning sooner than 4 months but these people i spoke to didnt have big baby's, werent having 6plus oz feeds, one baby was actually 6 weeks prem. just seems alot of people want there little ones to sleep through that seems to be a main reason for introducing solids sooner rather than later.

OP posts:
mummy2t · 02/06/2008 13:02

sooner than 6 months, not 4!!!

OP posts:
kiskideesameanoldmother · 02/06/2008 13:04

mabel, can i ask, how have you discerned that your decision of when to wean was really based instinct? how did you unravel your instinct from cultural pressures and expectations?

i mean, most of our instincts are layered with cultural mores which make it normally very hard, even for behavioural researchers, to unravel the layers of instinct from social conditioning / expectations.

cmotdibbler · 02/06/2008 13:08

The international recommendations on weaning were set at 6 months after a lot of research. Before 4 months carries a lot of risks in terms of allergy, gut problems etc. Its known that the gut lining 'seals' at some point between 4 and 6 months which stops so many things going across into the blood, so in order to protect all children, both in childhood and adulthood, they recommend 6 months. You cannot tell from anything that your baby does whether this has happened or not, so 'mothers instinct' has nothing to do with it.

My DS was born 6lb 5oz at 35 weeks, and was over 10lb by his due date and continued along the 99.8th percentile till he was one. He only had breastmilk till he was 6 months old, and yes, he woke in the night, but thats what babies do, and I was quite happy to feed him then.

mummy2t · 02/06/2008 13:09

my HV say's it is linked to overweight children and allergies.
I weaned DS1 at dot on 4 months and he took to it great, we went really slow with and now ( 4.5 Years ) he is a great eater and is not overweight nor does he have any allergies. looking back though he could have gone longer, pehaps 5 months, i just felt at the time you weaned at 4 months cause thats what all the packets jars say! Silly i know, but know i seemed to be alot more informed about different issues about my children, mainly because of the net, if i wonder about something i get on here and find out about it whereas before i didnt have that information at my fingertips

OP posts:
msappropriate · 02/06/2008 13:10

the big baby thing makes no sense. how can giving something with less calories than milk (rice,fruit.veg) make then fuller? Rice fruit and veg are diet food not calorific. My baby managed fine till he was 6 months and he was always near the 100th centile mark. He hasdway better weight gain that his big brother who was weaned early (it made his sleeping/weight gain worse).

ivykaty44 · 02/06/2008 13:11

thank you for the explination cmotdibbler

VictorianSqualor · 02/06/2008 13:14

ARGH, I knew I shouldn't have opened this flipping thread.

Weight has nothing to do with it, nor does 'instinct' (please use the correct word, 'instinct' would not tell us to go against nature).

DS1 is 7weeks old and almost 14lbs, he was 10lb 3oz at birth, this has nothing to do with gut maturity, whereas time does.

Babies develop at an average rate, not at all based on weight, but developmental age. It has been proven a gut is not mature enough until at the earliest 17 weeks, and at the latest 26 weeks, which is why it makes sense to wait until 26weeks, because you have no way of knowing which side of the scale your baby's internal organs develop at!

It has been suggested that if a baby can physically sit up unaided, pick up a piece of food, get that food into their mouth and swallow then they are likely ready to eat (Nature is clever, it wouldn't likely give us all the outer abilities to do something until the inner body was also ready), seems more than coincidence most babies will not be able to do the above until 6 months(ish) does it not?

Before six months they can't even chew, hence the need for purees. The only other animal that has their food mushed up is a bird, every other species doesn't eat food until it can chew, we are but animals.

As for having to introduce foods quickly Babies do not need food until about one year old, until then it is all about introduction to different tastes and textures, I don't see how six months to try new foods is going to mean it all has to be done at once.

ShowOfHands · 02/06/2008 13:18

MabelMay, I'd like to pick up on a couple of your comments if I may.

"baby's weight is more important than baby's age." I disagree with this. Weight is not at all related to gut maturation as far as I know which is the reason for waiting until 6 months.

"a mother's instinct works best on this one." The thread linked to above discusses this in more depth. Common sense alone can indicate that a baby is hungry and nothing else. I fail to see how instinct tells you that a baby's tummy is ready for more than milk. Sitting up, picking up food, chewing, transferring and swallowing much better markers imo.

"developmentally totally ready for it.
" How do you know? Can you explain further?

"One problem I find with waiting until they are 6 months old (apart from the fact that big, hungry babies will struggle to wait that long) is that you then have to introduce a wide range of foods, very quickly, to the baby's diet. By starting to wean slightly earlier you can start with very small 'tasters' etc and introduce different food groups very slowly, gradually moving up to 3 times a day." I've already stated that I don't agree with the big babies/early weaning argument. Waiting till 6 months or weaning at any time really does not mean that you have a finite amount of time to introduce foods. There is no rule that 3 meals a day must be introduced by a specific date. If you adopt the 'food for fun until 1yr' attitude, then food remains an interesting, textural, exploratory experience and isn't about getting a child into a 3 meals a day routine.

Sorry to sound like I am singling you out, I really am not but was just responding to your points in general.

kiskideesameanoldmother · 02/06/2008 13:18

breathe VS, breathe.

msappropriate · 02/06/2008 13:18

I can't see how it some mothers natural instinct to buy packets of babyrice, a blender and lots of ice cube trays. (some for laughable amounts of money). I know theres a huge instinct to feed a baby when its hungry (despite some some routines saying not to)- breasts wouldn;t leak when babies cired otherwise. But the instinct before the rise of baby food manufacturers that would be giving them some of your food and it wouldn't involve a freezer.

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 13:21

I don't know. By 'instinct' I guess it would be more accurate to say - he just seemed ready. He stared at me and DP eating and started flapping his arms and legs around every time we put something in our mouths. He went from being happy baby to unsettled, unsleeping baby. And he loved it from the start. I took it very slowly and gave him tiny amounts, gradually building up to 3 times a day by the time he was 6 mo.
Also, a woman I know who has been a maternity nurse then nanny for 30 years told me she always went by weight, as long as they were past 4 months. She was pretty spot on with other advice and what she said made sense.

I was weaned at 6 weeks!! In fact, all five of us kids were, and, luckily enough we're fine. But not a reason to recommend it of course!

VictorianSqualor · 02/06/2008 13:23

My 7week old stares at me when I eat, he has also just learnt to grab things, in fact he tried swiping my wine glass the other night, maybe he's ready for a glass of pinot?

msappropriate · 02/06/2008 13:24

My son stared at me whilst sewing but I didn't hand him a needle and thread. They are just interested in whatever you do at that age. My son who I weaned early loved it too. He may have well loved angel delight 3 times a day too but that doesn't mean its best for them. Lots of 3-4 momths babies are unsettled as its a classic growth spurt time. When I weaned early my son took less milk too which made him even more unsettled.

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 13:30

Like I said, I fully expected an MN onslaught... and I've never felt judged about the decision I made for my son until posting on here.

But by all means shoot my thread to pieces! I was just offering my opinion and own personal experience. For me, at the time, it felt right to turn an unhappy mum and unhapy baby into a happy mum and baby.

I am still happy with my decision and my ds1 is just dandy.

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 13:32

msappropriate, to be fair I know the difference between staring with interest/excitement at general activity and the way my ds1 seemed to be drooling and throwing fits over watching us eat.

by the way, he was almost 3 weeks overdue so this made him, in some ways, 20 weeks when he was weaned rather than 17.

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 13:34

oh and (sorry not to do this all in one post), msappropriate, it wasn't a growth spurt I'm sure as I gave it a good three weeks. And he drank the same amount of milk as he had before, if not more, on top of the small helpings of puree I was giving him.

kiskideesameanoldmother · 02/06/2008 13:38

Mabel, asking someone to elaborate on a premise or offering a sort of a rebuttal to what is already said is not being judgmental.

it is what good discussions are made of.

so i guess that what you meant by instinct is not really the dictionary (or scientific) meaning of the word then.

msappropriate · 02/06/2008 13:41

I think growth spurts can last longer than 3 wks according to some of the posters on here. Is there any reason why you didn't give more milk? I don't know about formula feeding so don't know if there is an upper limit advised. Having done it both ways with 2 different boys, both very large I found it much better and far easier waiting till 6 months.

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 13:46

I'm not being mardy kkamom (does that acronym work?) but of course I'm being judged negatively, but that's fine. I'm not complaining. I just don't want this to turn into MM vs MN, and move away from original OP's questions.
msappropriate, in my opinion he was already having too much milk if that doesn't sound too ridiculous (I have to FF as had breast surgery for breast cancer scare in my twenties - not trying to win any sympathy by the way!). He was finishing whole bottles then having a couple of ounces on top of that (so 10oz in each feed, every 3 hours). It actually felt a bit unhealthy! Whereas with the baby rice, then the apple, then the carrots etc, he settled back down to 8oz feeds and in a way it felt like his eating habits became less extremely iyswim. Does that make sense?

MabelMay · 02/06/2008 13:47

extreme, not extremely