weaning

[mummy2t]

Hi all My little one is 20 weeks old and i have just begun to offer a very small portion of baby rice mid morning, he is doing really well with it and really enjoying it. Today i offered the baby poridge and he loved that too, how long should i wait before a offer more tastes and eventually start the proper veg and fruit purees? i dont want to go to fast with it all
all advice welcomed
steph x

for your info victorian.

my children are half italian.

italians start weaning from the same time as us.

between 4-6 months.

they use stuff called pastina.

it's a completely baby safe form of tiny tiny pasta. made without gluten, wheat or anything that people can be allergic to. they've been doing that since anyone can remember it being available.

my childrens grandparents had it. along with all their other relatives. gp's are 88yo and 94 yo without any bowel problems.

the grandfather has 9 brothers and sisters all in late 80's, none of them have illnesses at all.

that is great, but that does not prove that all babies weaned before 6 months on gluten free food will be problem free !

the whole point is, around 6 months is safer for most babies.

you don;t know if your baby is going to be one who can safely eat food before then

if there is a strong family history of allergies, excema etc then waiting is definitely better

it still comes back to the point though , that the vast majority of babies do not need food before around 6 months.

and that babies can and should consume a lot of milk

Thanks for that yvonnek, but I'll keep my scientifically proven info at the forefront of my mind and just be pleased your parents were not harmed.

Did you know that some people have jumped off buildings, others have taken massive drug overdoses, some have had to jump from burning buildings 30 odd feet high.
They all survived, doesn't mean every instance would be safe does it?

I have not said anywhere that it is impossible for a baby to be ready for food at 20 weeks and have done so with no illness.

I have said, however, that it is impossible to tell which baby is and which isn't. I think you'll find I even suggested a more suitable way for mummy2t to discover if her baby is ready with BLW.

What I can assure you is there are babies out there that will be severely damaged by early weaning, and as we cannot see which they are, surely it's better to wait to 26weeks than risk their lifes health?

lulumama

i agree with what you have said all along, there is a huge majority whereby 6 months is the optimum age for weaning.

i objected to VS commentswhereby i thought she was being over agressive with her opinion. making people like myself and mummy2t feeling like we had been bad parents.

as has been said previous. some children who are showing all the signs are capable of weaning a few weeks earlier.

i don't force my opinion that you must wean before 6 months.

therefore i feel it's wrong to be forced upon that i am wrong to start early.

VS keep saying she is a fountain of wisdom on these matters.

however she has been rude, agressive and abusive ( i quote "fucking mentalists")

these kinds of attitudes are not acceptable.

VS is entitled to share her views on the matter, however not to shove it down our throats.

and VS my last comment was to point out you can't make comments you just make up on the spot or without checking the facts

("The UK is one of the first countries to start weaning at all, in many many countries you'd be thought a crackpot for introducing foods as early as 6 months,")

lulumama,i do agree starting before 6 months is only for SOME babies.

I really can't believe these awful weaning posts. I was advised by a pedeatrician to start weaning at 4 month (reflux) but held out till over 5 months because I was so worried about what I read on mn. I also checked with a dietician and feeding specialist - neither felt weaning before 6 months would be a problem. Wish I'd just got on with it - he was so much happier.

Here's a quote from a very interesting article that was in the Timesonline 21st of June last year

'Dr Gillian Harris, a clinical psychologist at Birmingham Children?s Hospital who also lectures at Birmingham University, says that such guidelines ?are based on no scientific evidence whatsoever?. She claims that they are derived from WHO studies in developing countries and are simply not applicable in the UK.

?We have bigger babies who are growing much faster,? she says. ?I don?t know a single health professional in this country who agrees with the DoH suggestion that mothers should breast-feed exclusively for six months, and research shows that only 2 per cent of women manage it.? She adds that ?there is no reasoning in terms of allergy prevention and no reasoning in terms of health?.......

Breast milk does not even provide enough iron for babies at six months, Harris says, and studies that she has submitted for publication to a major medical journal show that it is far more important for children to be eating vegetables by that age.....

Why do certain mumsneters (armed with their 'guidelines') feel they know so much better than trained health professionals?

sorry Purplepolecat, that info about iron is bolleaux. The iron in breast milk is much more readily available to babies than iron found anywhere else and the majority do get enough iron from breast milk until six months. Here is some researched evidenced based info:

"Anemia is uncommon in breastfed babies for several reasons

• Healthy, full-term babies have enough iron stores in their bodies to last for at least the first six months. The current research indicates that a baby's iron stores should last between six and twelve months, depending upon the baby.

• The iron in breastmilk is better absorbed than that from other sources. The vitamin C and high lactose levels in breastmilk aid in iron absorption.

Iron Source

Percentage of Iron Absorbed
breastmilk
~50 - 70%
iron-fortified cow milk formula
~3 - 12%
iron-fortified soy formula
less than 1% - 7%
iron-fortified cereals
4 - 10%
cow's milk
~10%
Note: The amount of iron absorbed from any food depends greatly upon the milk source of iron (eg, human vs cow), type of iron compound in the food, the body's need for iron, and the other foods eaten at the same meal.

• Breastfed babies don't lose iron through their bowels; cow's milk can irritate the intestinal lining (resulting in a tiny amount of bleeding and the loss of iron).

The original iron stores of a full-term healthy baby, combined
with the better-absorbed iron in breastmilk, are usually enough
to keep baby's hemoglobin levels within the normal range
well into the second six months.

Which babies are more at risk for iron-deficiency anemia?

• Babies who were born prematurely, since babies get the majority of their iron stores from their mother during the last trimester of pregnancy.
• In addition, there is evidence that babies whose birth weights are less than 3000 grams - about 6.5 pounds - (whether term or premature) tend to have reduced iron stores at birth and appear to need additional iron earlier.
• Babies born to mothers with poorly controlled diabetes.
• Theoretically, babies born to mothers who were anemic during pregnancy could have lower iron stores, however medical studies do not show this to be a problem. Babies born to mothers who are anemic during pregnancy are no more likely to be iron deficient than those born to mothers who are not anemic during pregnancy.
• Babies who are fed cow's milk (instead of breastmilk or iron-fortified formula) during the first year of life.

Healthy, full-term infants who are breastfed exclusively for periods of 6-9 months have been shown to maintain normal hemoglobin values and normal iron stores. In one of these studies, done by Pisacane in 1995, the researchers concluded that babies who were exclusively breastfed for 7 months (and were not give iron supplements or iron-fortified cereals) had significantly higher hemoglobin levels at one year than breastfed babies who received solid foods earlier than seven months. The researchers found no cases of anemia within the first year in babies breastfed exclusively for seven months and concluded that breastfeeding exclusively for seven months reduces the risk of anemia.

The original recommendations for iron-fortified foods were based on a formula-fed baby's need for them and the fact that breastmilk contains less iron than formula (doctors didn't know then that the iron in breastmilk is absorbed much better). Also, a few babies do have lower iron stores and will need extra iron at some point in addition to what they are getting from solids (though this can often be remedied by making sure that solids are high in iron and vitamin C - see below).

If mom or doctor is concerned about a baby's iron levels, have the doctor to do a blood test for hemoglobin.

Some babies are exclusively breastfed for a year (and occasionally up to two years) with no problems at all. In addition, some doctors recommend that babies with a high risk for allergies be exclusively breastfed for a year.

Why not use iron supplements as a protective measure for every baby?

The iron in breastmilk is bound to proteins which make it available to the baby only, thus preventing potentially harmful bacteria (like E.coli, Salmonella, Clostridium, Bacteroides, Escherichia, Staphylococcus) from using it. These two specialized proteins in breastmilk (lactoferrin and transferrin) pick up and bind iron from baby's intestinal tract. By binding this iron, they

1. stop harmful bacteria from multiplying by depriving them of the iron they need to live and grow, and
2. ensure that baby (not the bacteria) gets the available iron.

The introduction of iron supplements and iron-fortified foods, particularly during the first six months, reduces the efficiency of baby's iron absorption. As long as your baby is exclusively breastfed (and receiving no iron supplements or iron-fortified foods), the specialized proteins in breastmilk ensure that baby gets the available iron (instead of "bad" bacteria and such). Iron supplements and iron in other foods is available on a first come, first served basis, and there is a regular "free-for-all" in the baby's gut over it. The "bad" bacteria thrive on the free iron in the gut. In addition, iron supplements can overwhelm the iron-binding abilities of the proteins in breastmilk, thus making some of the iron from breastmilk (which was previously available to baby only) available to bacteria, also. The result: baby tends to get a lower percentage of the available iron.

Supplemental iron (particularly when administered in solution or as a separate supplement rather than incorporated into a meal) can interfere with zinc absorption. In addition, iron supplements and iron-fortified foods can sometimes cause digestive upsets in babies.

A recent study (Dewey 2002) found that routine iron supplementation of breastfed babies with normal hemoglobin levels may present risks to the infant, including slower growth (length and head circumference) and increased risk of diarrhea.

A recent review article on iron (Griffin and Abrams, 2001) indicates that if your baby is basically healthy, iron deficiency in the absence of anemia should not have developmental consequences. "

For more evidenced based info about solids and when to introduce them look here

exactly, i said all advice welcome, not to shove different opinions down my throat. Like i had said a million times, i understand about growth spurts and i held off for afew weeks as i thought he settle down. we was feeding very regular, taking more milk, started to wake again afew times in night to feed when he had previously been going through, i might add i wasnt trying to get him to sleep through it was just the rountine he fell into. he was feeding so regular that it was interrupting, ds1 rountine, e.g given getting him to school of a morning.
i kept increasing his amounts of milk to the point he would actually throw the whole lot up. he was very unhappy, very unsettled and after care thought i decided to offer small amounts of baby rice. what else could i have done???? i know the guidelines are 26 weeks and in all honesty i was going to wait until 26 weeks, it just didnt work out that way.
like i have said before, if it was seriously harming babies the law wouldnt allow it to be made, let alone to be sold.

Gosh, that's a lot of info.

Purplepolecat, I feel we've been here before. I feel exactly the same as you. No trained experts in the field seem to feel this awful hysteria about weaning that some MNetters do.
As I said before, my consultant paediatrician, a specialist in feeding problems (amongst children and babies, obviously) and a teaching doctor at St Mary's Hospital totally refutes the idea that weaning after 4 months and before 6 can cause IBS. They actually RECOMMEND weaning early for babies with reflux/acid etc problems.

I just want to ask, VictorianSqualor et al, and I'm not asking you facetiously, but are you saying you know more than him? Why does he(and my GP, and another paediatrician who I've seen) not share your panics over weaning before 26 weeks?

Idontbelieveit I really have no idea or particular opinion about the iron debate.
Lets not just trade research. I am a researcher myself and know full well you can always find evidence one way or the other. I also know there are often political reasons why some advice gets taken up and circulated (I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here)

I can see some mumsnetters on this thread desperately want irrefutable 'facts' but they're as rare as hens teeth in this game. We just have to make our own minds up over who we listen to. I wouldn't diss any mum for her decision to wait or to wean before 6 months.

I am genuinely confused though when some posters insist that GPs, health visitors and pedeatricans have got it wrong. Why do they think they know better (on the basis of online message) than health professionals who have seen the baby and have a detailed case hitory.

are there a number of adults out there that were weaned after 6months to prove that they dont have IBS, allergies etc etc?

well they cant be proper adults as my mum said even in her day no one was told to wait till 6 months.

her youngest is 22 y o

so it must be a recent thing.

but i think i'm setting myself up for an ear bashing as someone , somewhere will probably get out a reference book and prove that they have been doing this since before hen's laid eggs.

pls pls pls, if VS is online. i hope your in a better mod today!

exactly, as it is only recent guidelines its hardly a proven fact.

at what point will they become proven in your eyes?

as purplepolecat has pointed out, there is a lot of contradictory stuff out there

but the NHS and DoH, whom i trust , do advise weaning around 6 months. i would be inclined to beleive them, not the makers of baby food who are supposed to be relabelling their products ..... they have their profits and bottom lines to thikn of.

do whatever you feel is right for you, but make an informed decison, which means hearing opinions that clash and disagree with your own.

if after reading them, you still feel you are doing what is right, and making a choice with all the facts,then more power to you

Hiya, don't beat yourself up about doing it early. I will now redirect the attacks
I started weaning dd1 at 16wks and dd2 is now 14wks and started baby rice at 5.30pm 2wks ago (at 16lb 6oz). Like you I could not keep up with her demands to bf. It was interfering with my time with dd1, who was becoming more and more jealous. Now she has cut down from 11bf per day to 7. I hasten to add that for all those people who say size has no bearing on weaning- bllcks. My dd2 is now in 6-9mth clothes. The reason that weaning is recommended no later than 6mths is because the calories are not sufficient for an average weight baby after this time.
At 3mths mine is average for 7mths. (17lbs now).
My choices were wean early or go onto hungry baby formula.
I would prefer to wean early and still bf. I could not physically up her milk intake.

i was weaned at 5 months 33 years ago, and my brother weaned at 6 months 26 years ago.. so you see? what our own families did is just a tiny snapshot and not enough evidece in my eyes to do one thing or the other

i have stressed that if your baby seems ready, and is not 26 weeks, then you are more than likely ok to start weaning

and that if there is a strong history of allergies etc, then the later the better

i am not wildly claiming all babies must be weaned at 26 weeks without variation

but if you cannot see inside your babies gut you need to know the correct signs that they are ready and watching you eat and being hugnrier are not the most reliable signs

PS my HV agreed completely with my decision to do this, due to the frequency of feeds, size of her (not hugely fat, just long and big). She also agreed it was better to be able to continue to bf and wean early, instead of changing to ff.

weaning is recommended around 6 months tori, not at 6 months and no later.

and all NHS and DoH weaning info stresses no solids before 17 weeks

but chacun a son gout

Lulu what are the signs then? diving towards the table. Being fully bf and winded just before we eat and her screaming the place down trying to eat her hand? Leaning into the spoon when you let her try a small amount of potato mash and being completely quiet after that? Except for grunting noises as she leans forward toward the table agaibn All things that my dd2 does.

tori there is no link between size/readiness to wean.

Awww, tori, was just waiting for you to pitch up your tent. You'll excuse me if I ignore you now won't you?

Yes, I did say "The UK is one of the first countries to start weaning at all, in many many countries you'd be thought a crackpot for introducing foods as early as 6 months"
I'm assuming you know that by one of it means not only?

have posted them at least twice on this thread.
look, have had the weaning debate with you before, and you and i are not going to agree so i bid you goodnight!

Ps Like I said, not wind or tiredness, but crying at every mealtime when watching us eat, suggests she wanted food IMHO.

Also, just to add to the weight thing, DS2 is now 15lb, at 12 weeks............

my ds2 is 21 weeks coming up and some posters have jumped on me like i am starting at under 17 weeks

she has no concept at 12 weeks old of what food is. breast milk or formula is the only food a baby of a few weeks old needs. it is a common growth spurt time too