Other formula feeders, can I be nosey?

[strawberrycake]

When are you starting to wean your LO? My ds is 5.5 m/o and I'm starting to realise I seem to be the only one now at all the groups/ clinics I go to who isn't weaning and is using formula (a few I know who bf are waiting too).

I keep seeing feeding advice now which involves solids, loads in fact!

My ds hasn't shown interest in solids, so I haven't fed him. He doesn't eat much milk and sleeps through. Also it's easy to feed them just milk isn't it? No faff.

I'm asking ff in particular as
1-I ff myself
2-From my experience bf seem as a whole more likely to wait (well judging from women I know only) I guess maybe if you successfully bf maybe it means different emotions? (pure speculation)

I'm not out to judge, just interested to see if I'm on my own or if this is the norm and my friends are not.

my dd was born in spain and they wean at 4 months...it even says it in their equivalent of the red book and i was given print outs of what to give.4months was fruit,5 months was veg etc gradually adding things.
I was told to introduce one fruit at a time,not to mix etc if any reactions/allergies occurred they could be picked up on and what caused them.
Having lived in Spain for 6 years when i returned to the uk and heard all the talk of 6 months i was a bit

do they not follow the who guidlines?

i stuck to the 6 months with DD2 who was formula fed but there is a whole nation of spaniards still walking..........
(and their country is 3 times the size of ours!)

funkydemon - I'm in The Netherlands - the population appears to be alive and well.

So the only criteria as to whether guidelines are worth following is if a country is not actually de-populated???

I weaned my ff twins when they were five months. They were drinking buckets and buckets of milk and giving me sad old looks when I would eat a sandwich or cereal or something, so I figured it was time. Just bland stuff to begin with - baby rice before their lunchtime milk. Then progressed onto steamed swede (yum), pureed pears, apples carrots etc and introduced steamed fish at 7 months I think. Worked a treat for us, never had dodgy tummies, allergies etc.

just seems a bit strange that a country 3 times the size of ours doesnt follow the guidlines though..........

if not,why? does anyone know

Guidelines are simply "guidelines" - nobody will be imprisoned for not applying them concretely. Personally, I always think anyone who gets their knickers in a twist about WHO/NICE "guidelines" is simply someone unable to draw their own conclusions and probably needs guidance through all matters in life. :)

Absolutely - guidelines are not 'the law' thank goodness. In fact, they are a standard for governments and other agencies to follow, rather than instructions to individual mothers.

The 6 mths guidance from the WHO is really to advise countries on what makes a good public health policy, based on sound evidence from many robust studies all over the world. So states should enact whatever measures are needed to enable exclusive bf to 6 mths (means training HCPs, labeling of foods, employment laws, documentation and leaflets,health service practice and so on).

Individuals will always need to judge for themselves what is needed individually, and common sense indicates this will span a range.

Countries may be influenced by other less-evidence-based factors such as culture and habit, food manufacturers lobby, retailers, medics who are not as up to date on the science as they should be...and they may not change their public health guidance in line with WHO.

But simply pointing to a nation of alive people is a not-very-funny way of ignoring the science of nutrition , as is imagining that small babies gaze longingly at a sandwich out of hunger.....

Actually jaggedthistle the only thing that is utter, utter bollocks is your rather sactimonious attitude.

My research included actually speaking to a dietician (who explained the whole weaning before 6 months/BF WHO issue)and Health Visitor, reviewing the British, American and Australian dietetic associations position on weaning, and where possible the actual scientific studies mentioned within.

The British Dietetic Associations position on weaning is that it should occur somewhere between 4-6 months depending on the child but not before 17 weeks. They find no evidence which supports the suggestions that weaning before 6 months causes harm to babies.

I suggest you have a read of it here:
www.bda.uk.com/publications/statements/PositionStatementWeaning.pdf

You are correct in that the individual child must be ready to begin solids and the signs are as you describe, however i was not suggesting otherwise. If a 4 month old is sitting up supported, has lost the tounge thrust reflex and is interested in solid food there is no reason not to let them progress onto solids just becuase they are not yet 6 months old.

In some cultures babies are weaned much much earlier than we consider normal and strangely they dont report rampant IBS etc.

I agree that the sudden failure to sleep through the night is not necessarily a sign of needing to start solids especialy at around the 4 month mark but taking nearly 50 oz of formula a day and then suddenly waking up starving in the middle of the night might be. That was my point.

On the whole BF issue, i dont think it is that hard to imagine what the WHO are trying to do with the 6 month guideline. As health professionals they would like to see all babies breastfed for as long as possible and that is not a bad thing. They consider however that beginning the weaning process prior to 6 months (when they seem to consider that supply has become established) a potential threat to longterm breastfeeding. Evidence suggests that many babies can make it to 6 months before their dietary needs require the transition to combined milk and solids so they set the benchmark at 6 months. It is not rocket science. Studies coming to light at the time the guidance was issued suggesting babies weaned earlier than 6 months may have suffered harm tailed nicely into their policy as makeweight arguments but were never the primary motiviation for the position.

Further studies are now showing those risks to have been overstated at best (see the BDA position statement) but the WHO guideline remains at 6 months.

So my point was, however inelegantly stated, that where a child is displaying developmental signs of readiness for solids the 6 month rule is more of a concern for breastfed babies as beginning earlier than that might constitute a threat to continued breastfeeding. As a formula feeder it was less of a concern to me.

ladies, in spain a pediatritian does weanning with you, they actually see the child and tell you if they think they are ready, they recommend you wait until 6 months but never before 5, they do fruit first, then veg, then meat, then fish, one at a time, introduting every 3 or 4 days a new food, to pick up allergies, you should have introduced all food by 9/10 months.

the point of waiting to 6 months is to make sure, as much as possible without intrusive test, that the guts are fully developed and ready to digest food other than milk, spanish doctors know this.

i know this because is what all my spanish nephews and niece had gone through.

i can 100 percent say it was 4 months where i lived in spain as it states it all in the book and leaflets i was given....
it followed the same pattern you say about though wouldliketoknow of fruit first etc

From the baby-led weaning book:
False signs of readiness:
. waking at night
. weight gain slowing slightly
. watching parents eat (babies are fascinated from about 4 months in all activies going on around them.
. making lip smacking noises
. not going straight to sleep after milk feeds
. small baby
. big baby

True signs:
. sitting with little support
. able to grab things and take them accurately to their mouth
. able to gnaw or chew

definitely false sign - competition with other parents

the bit i said was rubbish sugarplum was the bit where you said it didn't matter/apply to you as a ff. that just seemed to not make sense at all. the idea of outward signs mirroring gut development seemed logical in what i have read.

i had no intention of being sanctimonious, i was just shocked at what you said. guess that these things don't come across well in text.

thanks for clarifying what you based this on though.

i did underline the 'abouts'in my post to emphasise that my understanding is that the guidelines are not prescriptive and you should look at your baby not just their age. however i still don't see the benefit in weaning earlier if not advised that your baby somehow needs it.

it does seem that you are reading between the lines a bit about the WHO's ulterior motives in encouraging breastfeeding through weaning guidelines.

jaggythistle-It would be kind of nice to have a stalker, I'm not the kind of person to gain one

All got a bit serious.

I think I'm too lazy to wean before he actually stuffs things in his own mouth tbh.

yeah, didn't mean to cause a stooshie with my bollocks comment

i spend far too much time on t'internet really.

my nephews and niece are 6, 3 and 1, so i am pretty sure my advice is up to date, all in the same region though, but i would think they do the same in the whole state.

jaggythistle sorry i bit your head off. i was having by monthly grumpy day and i am afraid you saw the rough end of it.

For what it is worth, my comments about the WHo and BF/weaning came from a dietician.

I guess all i can say with absolute certainty is that at 18-19weeks my DD was very ready to move on to solids.

No probs :)

I'm sure I sounded a tad grumpy too

I guess that's been your dietician's opinion about the bf thing, I just hadn't heard that one before.