Query around first solids - why does 4 months seem to be quoted as a key milestone?

[HandMini]

This is not intended to be controversial - I am fully aware that healthcare guidelines are to begin introducing solids at 6 months.

However, I keep seeing/hearing reference to introducing solids at the 4 month mark - on the internet; in baby care reference books (such as What to Expect in the First Year, Heidi Murkoff); on baby food packages, some of which say suitable from 4 months; and from my mother's generation.

Is it the case that solids USED to be introduced at 4 months, and this is now out of date advice that seems to hang around? I'm just interested to know, as it seems to crop up a lot.

Thanks

Mine was eating brocolli by the handful at 23 weeks

I don't think there's anything to "get" - some babies get into eating quicker than others.

public I'm guessing you mean 6 months

When the broccoli is squished and sucked there's plenty of vits being taken in, far more than you might realise.

But a mix of puree and BLW can be a great compromise, too.

peedieworky the beauty of BLW is that you don't need special faffy recipies - just give them what you have and let them have fun! You may need to tailor it a bit - eg soup - don't season and leave lumpy, cut down the spices a bit in a curry/chilli, but other wise just feed them from your plate. I love BLW!

sorry i meant either 26 weeks or 6 months...been up since 4.26 this morning...
i tended to mash\whizz what we were having and spoon that in and give him veg\pasta\carbs\meat to feed himself with.
it's what i did with the others and it's worked ok for us.

I was chatting to a school granny the other day and she said she was advised to wean her first baby at ten days.. Ten weeks I said? No. Ten days.

But she's 41 now and totally fine {touched the wooden school gate}.

This is the earliest I've ever heard of..!

Anyway, I agree with 5-7mths as a better guide, I did blw with my son from six months but he wasn't particularly fussed about food being a milk monster so he was 8 months really when he started to eat.

With my dd she can't sit up yet (5months) so will hang on but seems much more interested in food and eating than ds so have given her a little purée which she loves. Will go on to blw as soon as she can sit up.

I thought that evidence had emerged recently to suggest that some babies may become iron deficient if exclusively breast fed until six months? See here and here.

It's one of the things I am mildly fretting about at the moment, as ds is nearly 5 months and ebf, and I'm trying to weigh up the virgin gut thing against the anaemia thing (and don't feel remotely equipped to do so).

RitaMorgan: I'm so sorry - for some reason I was totally in a muddle and had misread 17 weeks, and had somehow made that 6months. I don't know how I could have done that!

4 months is OK, but 6 months better.

But if you read your Christina Hardyment about the history of childrearing practices, I still think the idea of "endangering" to be unnecessarily alarmist.

Zephirine - those articles in the newspapers earlier this year were hugely controversial. There was no new research or evidence, just an opinion piece in the BMJ written by a group of academics who are funded by baby food manufacturers!!!

Current evidence for developing countries indicates that EBF for six months does not increase the risk of anaemia.

This is why we have government/NHS recommendations - because most of us (including, or perhaps especially, the national media) are not equipped to weigh up these theoretical health risks.

That's reassuring, boobmeister, although the US study they link to from 2007 still sounds a bit worrying.

Anyway, I think I've already blown the whole virgin gut thing with ds. He managed to get dd's shoe earlier this afternoon and was avidly chewing by the time I noticed

We have decided to go for what we see as the most common sense approach when there is all this muddle of different 'scientific' opinion and advice. In this case - to wean when dc can sit up. We wouldn't want to eat while laid back or straining muscles to sit up, so we don't think its a good idea for him. We expect that point to be between 5 and 6 months as he is quite good at sitting already.

ZephirineDrouhin

This gives you the info you need:

www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html

Lazy bloody journalism put breastfeeding understanding back 5 years

Not sure some random persons blog will help - this is only presenting their version of the findings, how are they less valid than the Doctors who wrote the article the person is trying to dispute?

This is what I mean - you can interpret 'evidence' in any way you like. You ultimately have to make your own mind up about what you think is best - who do you believe most, and which arguments make sense to you.

Did BLW at 6 months with DD, planning to do it again with DS very soon and it makes perfect sense to me - did we evolve with calendars on our walls and blenders and steamers in our caves?! No, for millions of years the first time a parent would have realised their baby was ready for food was when they swiped some for themselves and tried to shovel it in.

The Analytical Armadillo is a well known and well-respected breastfeeding counsellor who fully researches and references all her articles, so you can see for yourself whether what she writes is valid. Far more so than lazy journalists. How it compares to the researchers is that she explains how they got to their findings, and she also brings in other research that they have not included because they were cherry picking to create a news headline (but WHO and the NHS did). Note: this wasn't research, but a review of a limited amount of existing data instead of using all available data as was done to create the official guidelines.

When you look into the research properly, ignoring the newspapers, you find that it is true that in some cases milk only may not be sufficient for some babies to 6 months, and some babies are at risk of anaemia (etc) without supplement or complimentary foods before this point - but this was NOT news, and this was ALREADY part of the WHO and the NHS's guidelines. The babies in question are babies with specific problems - perhaps specific premature babies or babies with other special medical needs. These babies are already being dealt with by paediatricians and their parents know about their special needs. The research cited in the paper discusses this and this lead to the headlines. "Some babies may be at risk" worries parents that THEIR baby may be at risk, yet the at-risk babies were already being dealt with!!!

There is other research into the best time to introduce solids to limit the risk of allergies and the current research is very contradictory, so by taking one or two studies, as these guys did, you can make the case for the introduction of risky solids (eg wheat) at, say, 4 months - and equally by picking out other studies you could equally validly (or invalidly) say that parents should wait until 12 months before introducing wheat. So, rather than cherry picking studies as these guys did, the WHO and the NHS looked at all available research that we have at the moment, and made a decision based on the full amount of data. Research continues into this as we still don't have a really good understanding of it, so guidelines may change, but the guidelines really are the best we can do with what we have.

The point of posting AA's blog, though, is that it does give you the information that you need to make a decision because not only does it have her explanation of the news articles (which you can clearly argue is her opinion or interpretation), it also has the references which you can check out yourself to make a decision based on the science, not the lazy news articles, hence why it's an important link.

Thanks, organiccarrotcake. The BBC report also linked to the BMJ article and responses, which between them contained a lot of the information in the blog.

It seems like one of those areas where much more research needs to be done, but with strong evidence in favour of a weaning overlap, ie continuing to bf after solids have been introduced. I think I'm inclined to hedge my bets and start introducing solids gradually from about 5 months.

sorry zeph your statement about continuing to BF after introducing solids baffled me. Are you saying that you thought as one started the other should finish?

It became obvious DD was ready for solids as she would cry a lot when she saw me eat (1 or 2 weeks before 6 months).

Sometimes you have to really look at the research carefully and not just the headlines. For instance, one study cited in the review mentioned on this thread concluded that wheat should be introduced prior to six months to avoid wheat allergy. The study was of over 1600 children so seems robust, however there were only 4 children found who had a diagnosable wheat allergy and all had wheat introduced after six months. So really the conclusions were based on a very, very limited sample yet became evidence for early weaning.

It is hard though, because new research comes out all the time, so it can be easy to question guidelines that have been in place for awhile as not bring current.

I started weaning my son at around 5 months after he grabbed my food and shoved it in his mouth a few times. Started with BLW as I felt that as it was a bit early, it made sense to only let him eat what he could actually manage himself. Gave him some baby rice at around 5.5 months though can't remember why, but he LOVED it, the little weirdo . Now at almost 8 months he manages most things himself but still loves a spoonfed breakfast. Er, have now forgotten the point of both this post and the thread, so sorry if I've strayed off topic

"Gave him some baby rice at around 5.5 months though can't remember why, but he LOVED it, the little weirdo"

Don't think zeph meant that but rather that research increasingly suggests that the continuation of bm alongside solids is protective against all sorts. Plenty of women do stop bf as they wean often having started mix feeding in preparation. It may be that bm whilst weaning is more, at least as important as ebf,bf in future health.

Certainly not, penguin! (I started dd on solids at around 6 months but carried on with bf until she was 4 ). As bangcrash says, I just mean that the evidence for the benefits of continuing to breastfeed after weaning onto solids seems to be more conclusive than much of the other evidence around this subject.

It's a good point though: given that the evidence is so strong, and that the guidelines could easily be misconstrued to mean bf for six months then stop and move on to solids, it is perhaps something that the Department of Health ought to look at clarifying.