Not quite breast & bottle feeding - but would like to hear your views...

[suzi2]

Since I value your opinions... I could post on "FEEDING" but don't know anyone there (being all shy now..)

Would there be any good reason to introduce your baby to solids early? I ask because so ladies on another site I use have introduced their babies to rice - their babies are 6wks + 10wks. They have done this as their babies never seem satisfied, want more milk an hour later, chew their fists and don't sleep through at night. I m pretty shocked - I thought this was a no-no.

My DS won't be getting anything other than milk until he's 6 months as I have severe allergies.

But just wanted to know if there is any real benefit introducing solids early?

Weaning that early is a faff, makes very little differnece sleeping wise and may disguise na underlying problem and could cause long term gut damage and/or allergy. Remember the baby who was fed instant mash/gravy from a young age through his parent's ignorance

The health visitors in our area run a weaning course (its very good, you get a free hand blender, recipe books and best of all there's a creche). You get invited to it when your baby is coming up to four months. Their advice was that the absolute minimum should be 16 weeks, and only then if the baby was showing signs of being ready, but to leave it as long as possible.

I started weaning DS at nearly 20 weeks, it seemed to be about right for him.

I am having a debate with myself at the moment about weaning. DD is currently exclusively breastfed (at 4.5 months), I am loving breastfeeding, but she starts nursery at beginning of January. If I leave it till 6 calendar months to start weaning, I will have approx 2 weeks to at least start getting her used to taking solids before nursery starts. I really want to do what is best for her, but also, selfishly, want to be the one who sees her reaction to new flavours etc. So, would it be terrible to start weaning her at 24 weeks if she seems ready then? This would give me a month before nursery starts to at least start getting her used to solids.

My sister has asthma and dh & I both have hayfever, so we are allergy prone as a family.

Sorry for hijack!

mandy mac, wouldn't rush. Try each new flavour at a weekend and then give the same to nursery all week.

Agree with LizS. You want to keep control of the weaning process. The nursery DS goes to took all my concerns on board, and he had completely organic veggie gluten-free diet until v recently ( he's 13 mos. now)

I think it all depends on your baby when you start. If they're not ready they let you know pretty quick. Trust your instincts. My wee lad was grabbing stuff off our plates at 5 mos. so I took that as a pretty sure sign of being ready.

But the "signs" of readiness are not "signs" of being ready for food - they're signs of a baby being four months old.

"waking up in the night when they'd previously slept through" - that's just because they have a longer attention span and realise that there's not someone there to pat them back to sleep, etc.

"watching what I eat" - er, you'll find that your baby probably watches you doing most things, doesn't mean they're ready for driving lessons or to do a bit of DIY about the place.

"putting everything in his mouth" - babies do this. They have something like a gazillion nerve endings in their mouths and since they're unable to do research online or take out an encylopedia subscription, this is how they learn about the world. At four months old, they have the coordination to get their hands in their mouths and also to hold something in their hand and bring it to their mouth.

"being hungrier" - it's a growth spurt. Go with it - it's often a longer one than you're used to, but they will settle down. Baby rice is less calorific than milk, and it can cause bunging problems (shall we say...!), and it's like glue.

Can't think of any more off the top of my head

HM, the kellymom signs are things like sitting unaided, and using the pincer grip, if I remember rightly - they're certainly not anything about sleep, or putting things in the mouth. Things that babies generally can't do before 6 months, anyway.

... just checked, and it's those, and also

• interested in meals, puts food in mouth
• no tongue thrust
• ready and willing to chew.

WigWamBam, as far as my fuzzy memory recalls, I thought the research for 6 months applied to bf babies as no research was done on formula fed one?? Or was it because ff infants have already had something "unnatural" (don't mean that to be inflammatory! Couldn't think of another way to put it) so it's less clear cut for them. My memory on this is very hazy now though - back from when they changed to the 6 months recommendation rather than anything recent and I wasn't really paying attention anyway...!

My Mum and MIL weaned at very early ages. 'Didn't do you any harm' they say with glee. I think there is a certain amount of fashion depending on where and when you live. Me, I do as I'm told but I'm sure the advise will change year to year.

Everyone in my NCT group weaned at or before 16 weeks with baby no.1 - like someone else said, it was almost something to be proud of, like they were more advanced. I waited till gone 6 months even though advice then was 4m as ds1 was just not a hungry baby. Oh, and it made no difference to sleep because he slept through from about 2 weeks old (I kid you not!).

Weaned at about 5.5 months with ds2 (hungrier baby) and 6 months with ds3. Oh, and they slept through from about 2 weeks too.

Jammy sod? Me?

NQC, I was exploding myths

When did the 24 weeks guideline come in?

With both mine, my advice was 16 weeks. And DD is only 3 and a half.

The end of 2002/beginning of 2003 IIRC - I remember it coming in when DS was about 3 months old - and a month later a long conversation with the HV who was telling me that I ought to be starting to wean DS at 4 months. She hadn't read the guidance - I printed it off (from the NHS website) and gave it to her!
She was rather embarrassed (sp?)

26 weeks, not 24. And the WHO have been saying it for ages. It's only that the Government hadn't put maternity leave guidelines in place that would allow more women to take the necessary time off. On paper, women now get a year off. For a large number, this isn't possible financially.

But its really important to trealise that guidance, whether it be from the WHO or whoever is just that, guidance to help you make an informed decision.

Every child is different, my DS would have been very miserable little boy indeed if we'd waited longer. He was ravenous.

BTW am amazed at number of critical comments about health visitors and their knowledge or lack of it.

The ones that I have had experience of have been really sensible, amazingly aware of all the issues, and very supportive. If anything, a bit over-zealous on the breastfeeding front (perhaps they get a bonus for each babe still feeding at a year).

Message withdrawn

Mazzystar - perhaps your health authority has particularly good training? Sounds very unusual tbh. If only all areas were like that.

I think it might be hit and miss who you get allocated to really. I was extremely skeptical about HV at outset (hate being told what to do by anyone). But thankfully they all seemed to realise that we just because you're a mother it doesn't mean you have sub-zero intelligence and have therefore been helpful.

But the main point was that its all very well getting militant about the 6months thing, but it just doesn't work out like that for some babies. Surely its more important to think about the quality of the diet you feed them than worrying about a matter of two or three weeks?

I had a great HV too, she was an ex NCT breastfeeding advisor, unfortunately she has just retired

I had a wonderful one for DS and a crap one for DD - had moved house and area in between.

MS, it's not worrying about two or three weeks with some though - not when they're weaning their babies at 6 weeks - that's 20 weeks early!

hm - do agree that that is utter madness! but was tring to reassure mandymac, who's situation is a bit different.