Help I don't want to wean yet... 16 wk hungry boy

[beccas]

Hi
DC1 girl, DC2 boy, now 16 weeks. He weighs well over 16lb (which she didn't reach till 6 months when I weaned her).
He was sleeping through night at 10 weeks, 7 till 7, and woke up happy and chatty, not screaming for food.
He was Exc breastfed till 8 weeks, then I introduced 1 bottle formula per day at around 4pm.
He feeds really well, always content.
He is now waking in the night, he's restless from 4am and I feed him around 6. In theory this isn't a problem, but I am grumpy from the waking up!

Advice required for hungry boys....
Do I
Put an extra feed in - dream feed to help him get through the night again or is this a bad idea to interrupt his good sleep patterns?

Feed from breast more frequently during day? He never gets to crying stage, so he isn't ever hungry.

Start to wean? Really not sure about this, he has good head control but only just!

Any other ideas welcomed! Thank you.

The NHS, whose guidelines are based on the WHO research does indeed recommend giving your baby finger foods if they show signs of readiness for them before 6 months.

Those signs are (and include all, not just some of the following): taking an interest in food, sitting unsupported, able to pick up and taste (and presumably swallow) finger foods.

So yes, if your baby is showing these signs of being ready to wean at some point between 17 weeks and 6 months, you should offer them finger foods.

The NHS recommendations are www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/en/docs/FINAL_QA.pdf

Any foods fortified with iron given before 6 months reduce the amount of iron from breastmilk which can be absorbed by the baby. IIRC, iron in bm is only available to the baby, not to organisms like salmonella which may be in their intestines. Iron from other sources is available to these pathogenic organisms so can contribute to illness.

Iron stores in bf babies start to deplete at some point between 6 and 12 months.

There's some useful information on this here.

I think you've got a few options beccas.

One is accept that between 4 and 6 months you'll be up at 4 (or maybe you won't, these things do change very quickly)

Another - could you shift the formula feed? I never did formula but it does take longer to digest... could you try giving that before bed instead?

Or you could try a dreamfeed. Most babies need at least one night feed until 6 months, some even longer.

iggy - no faith in WHO they classed homosexuality as a mental illness til 1991!

I think the point is that milk should be the main source of nutrition under 1 with solids supplementing it.

Starlight there is not 'a high chance you can harm them'. We don't know what the liklihood of harm is, how serious this might be or in which individuals such harm might occur. You might want to remember that this site is full of women whose children were weaned at 16 weeks plus and so saying there's a high chance they could have harmed them is both tactless and untrue.

Beccas If you don't want to wean yet, then don't - there is a very good chance it will make no difference to his sleep and you will have one more thing to do when you are tired. Just add more milk - yours or formula, whatever suits you best ( and good luck!) My friends have babys about your ds's age and they would be so happy to just have one night wakening!

Thanks for that Hope your night improves.

Hi Beccas,

My 10-month old DS was and is huge and hungry. At 4 months he was trying to steal my food and up a few times in the night and I wondered about early weaning, but persevered with breastmilk. It was hard-ish work (I remember pumping my boobs towards the end of feeds to get every last drop out for him ), made easier by co-sleeping, but we did just fine.

I started on sweet potato, the odd bit of fruit and veg when he was around 21 weeks (I think) and he took to it like a duck to water and I've no doubt that it helped his sleep.

If you don't want to wean, I wouldn't. I was always too worried about the whole immature gut thing to do it any earlier than 5 months and he was by that point sitting solidly and grabbing my fork. Okay, it's harder work but it will only be for a short while and he will be just fine without solid food at this stage.

Hi am interested too, DS is 17 weeks and getting hungrier - am too scared to wean properly before 6 months (history of eczema and asthma on DH side of family), he isnt sitting up unaided yet anyway, but was wondering if i gave him finger food in 3/4 weeks time, would that be ok, things like bananas etc? or would that be the same as just pureeing it and feeding him with spoon?

I weaned early for reasons not connected to sleep (and dd was much the same in terms of the 4am play time call) and it didn't help sleep at all. I was only giving tiny bits of baby cereal/fruit/veg so no protein which I believe is the part of a solid diet connected to sleeping better (sleep sense by megan faure certainly suggests so).
So, if you are looking to wean just because of sleep reasons I would say not to.

virgo, the theory is if they can sit up, reach for it, pick it up, bite, chew and swallow, then let them get on with it. Certainly not the same as feeding with a spoon. You're letting them do it.

I do sympathise. My dd was a v hungry baby, fed nearly hourly for the first year of her life and was 26lbs before she had anything other than milk (she was 7lbs at birth). She fed and fed and fed and fed. But she knew what she needed.

And can I just point out, as I do often on weaning threads, the guidelines are NOT prescriptive. They use language like 'around' and 'about' 6 months, they tell you to follow your baby, encourage them to go at their own pace, but not to push it. They explain that if your baby is sitting up, grabbing, able to put the food in their mouths themselves etc, then they're ready. They do account for difference by encouraging you to look at your baby.

The whole instinct thing is such a red herring. Yes you can know your baby is hungrier than usual, waking more, needing more calories. You CANNOT see into their guts and know they're physically ready.

See here

Agree with SOH.

I weaned at 26 weeks ish. DS could sit up, hold his food and was pretty competent from the off (we BLW with some purees).

At the time I compared him to what he was like at 17 weeks, there's no way he was ready that young! Couldn't sit unaided, couldn't grab and put to his mouth that well.

He didn't really get the hang of solids (as in having proper meals/snacks) until 9 months anyway.

Now at 1, he's trying to use cutlery, drinks from an open cup and doing very well. I can't see the need to rush things really.

DD2 recently went through a phase of waking at 4-5am for a feed (she was about 16 weeks at the time). Although I wasn't happy as I had got used to my full nights of sleep again, I followed all the advice from on here of 'just go with it'. She's now 20 weeks and back to sleeping through the night and is a happy contented little girl. She's ebf (whereas DD1 was ff) and we'll be waiting until she can do BLW as I think milk is the best thing for her at the moment.

Sitting up is such an easy thing to observe in your child as well. I cannot bear to see babies being spoon fed reclined in their buggy/carseat when they clearly can't sit up by themselves.

No Iggly I can't see the need to rush it either. It makes life much more complicated, even if you do BLW you still need to take food out with you.

ffs, what a lot of scaremongering!

who on earth said that it was harmful to wean then before 6 months??? I think it all boils down to common sense really, and if they appear to be ready and are showing all the signs then they are ready to be weaned. Guidelines really are guidelines, they are there for...guidance! You can't tar each baby's development with the same brush.

DS1 was sitting up independently at 17 weeks old and managed the first stages of weaning perfectly fine.

"very good chance it will make no difference to his sleep"

actually, DS1 slept through a few days after starting the weaning because he was starving and the breastmilk just wasn't enough. 7pm til 7am. So yes, weaning at 17 weeks can mean you get a good night's sleep and make sure your baby is going to sleep on a full stomach too.

love there's a massive growth spurt around 17 weeks. He may have got his fill of milk, spurt over and slept better once it was over.
I say this because when I started weaning DS, he slept the best ever for a bit then it soon stopped again. At first I thought it was solids but once sleep went tits up again, I knew I was mistaken

but igglybuff his sleeping continued to stay the same, we all got a good night's sleep from then on in after starting the weaning. That's my point! He slept soundly from when he was weaned more or less. I wasn't going to be a martyr and let my sleep deprivation (and also my mental health) get any worse. it's much easier to care for a baby during the day when you've had a good night's sleep yourself.

I think the moral of this thread is we have to agree to disagree with various other posters.
Fair enough others decided to wait it out til the landmark of 6 months before weaning - good for you. For others this just wasn't what felt right for the individual baby involved.

I would try to get through the next few weeks without weaning but if he still seems ravenous after that then consider weaning.

The British Dietetic Assocation has some research which I think is fairly balanced (others may not agree) www.bda.uk.com/publications/statements/PositionStatementWeaning.pdf

I read your post as saying that weaning would mean a good night's sleep. I disagreed. But agree to disagree, of course.

Also waiting until 6 months - well I think it would have been madness to wean DS at 17 weeks looking back, especially when comparing him at that age to what he was like at 6 months (and no, I didn't wean when he turned 6 months exactly). Some people treat 17 weeks as a "landmark" as if some magic switch goes off then. Which I very much doubt.

I did get a good night's sleep after DS1 was weaned though, that's the point I was making. Before I weaned him I was doing 'during the night' feeds, after I started weaning him then he slept through no problem which meant he needed to be weaned. he was larger than most babies his age.

some of us feel there's no point being a martyr and struggling through trying to keep breastfeeding every hour of the day just til the magic 6 month mark either. it depends how you view it I suppose...

anyway, I agree with the others on this particular thread that the OP should carryon with BFing but if he's still starving (and you'll know!) then consider weaning.

I think if there's a moral to the thread it should be to educate people about the guidelines, about the research on which they are based, the signs a baby is ready and to offer appropriate support and encouragement to people raising their babies and unsure of how to reach a decision.

We can all tell a good anecdote, doesn't mean the evidence and guidelines are redundant.

And actually when it's a case of something that affects a baby's health, wellbeing and happiness, I don't think agreeing to disagree cuts it.

Size/weight has nothing to do with need to be weaned. A larger than average baby is obviously thriving on breastmilk alone.

And martyr is rather a loaded term. I don't think the majority of mothers are chasing an arbitrary date on the calendar, they're observing the developmental signs in their child. Lack of ability to sleep through is not a sign of needing solids.

Agree SOH. My DS was 75-91 centile but didn't take to solids until 9 months. He just wasn't ready.

I think weaning is such an emotive issue because it's the one "development" that parents can control. We can't make our babies walk or talk until they're ready but we can give them solids and claim that they were ready without ever actually knowing if they were physically ready.