4 month old not gaining weight - told to introduce baby rice

[soapy2]

My BF DS is 17 weeks old and has just been weighed and hasn't put on any weight in 3 weeks. He is very long and has gone up the 75th centile line perfectly up until now and is otherwise bright, healthy (wet nappies, etc) and quite wriggly! I have always had to express in the mornings to give him extra in the evenings as he is so hungry at this time. He will take 7-9oz EBM plus extra from me at around 7pm but will then usually sleep all night. This week, though, he has started to wake at least once a night. The HV told me to introduce baby rice as he hasn't gained any weight. I'm not keen and would rather continue to breast feed alone for as long as possible. He usually feeds every 2.5 to 3 hours in the day. Should I go with the baby rice or is there something I can do to up my supply, also so that I can keep up with his demands in the evenings. It is getting difficult this week to be able to express enough because of the night feeds and therefore there isn't enough for him in the evening and so I have to feed him every half hour or so before he'll go to sleep. Formula??? I'm new to this message thing so sorry if this is too long and waffly and has all been said before!

blistering, charts on the UK are not based on formula fed babies . They are based on many datasets of babies whose feeding is not differentiated (though many of them will have been formula fed).

Can't understand why anyone would 'go with' 4 mths just because they are 'old fashioned'!! Why would you not look at the updated evidence?

I mean....do you still wear shoulder pads in your clothes?

Plus, blistering, (sorry, not getting at you! ) giving food is likely to reduce this baby's intake of calories, which would hardly address the weight issue!

what is the updated evidence? interested

it's ok i know you're not getting at me
i thought these government guidelines were a cack-handed way of dealing with future obesity tbh so I don't take them seriously

well that's what I thought
it's all our fault for giving our babies solids before 6 months
nothing to do with the crap they put in the food we give them afterwards
but don't mind being told am wrong.. my normal mindset is to question government guidelines..

Blistering - tiktok has already given a reference to the benefit of bf to 6 months. As I undersatnad it, the evidence was always that 6 months was best - although it has continued to have studeis that support the point but coincidentally the Government changed the guidelns form 4 to 6 months at the same time that maternity leave changed from 4 to 6 months .

So it is the four month advice you should have been sceptical about!

erm.. kinda disagree still
babies used to be given solids much much earlier
i think breastfeeding is fab long after six months
i just don't know what's wrong with food before six months

and if it's to do with allergies they could easily do something about the causes of that...
but that's another story. off now as don't want to hijack a worried mum's thread!

ps not running away ..everyone does things differently!

my cousin weans her babies onto solids at 6 WEEKS

"cos her mother did so"

blistering, the evidence about obesity and allergies is fairly weak, in my view. I don't think we have the hard evidence to say that solids before 6 mths cause either. We don't need it - there is plenty of other evidence for other health benefits. I posted one study but there are plenty more.

There are no studies that show any benefit in giving solids before then, as well, which is just as valid a concern.

I know there is a real feeling among many MNers that you shouldn't give food until 6mo - and I'm all for being aware of the best advice and I'm sure later weaning is better in mamy ways. BUT 1) that advice does seem to change regularly 2) babies vary and 3) when you have a very, very hungry baby, particularly a big boy, you are worn out and all that baby wants is to snatch your toast (that was my DS at 4mo) - I think there is an argument for it. And of course I do know this is an anecdotal one-off but DS was eating solid food from 17 weeks (starting gradually of course, he still had loads of BM too) and he is healthy with no eczema, ear infections etc and seems to have a good immune system. Why risk it? because all in all it may be the better option for that particular baby. The studies give averages, but maybe babies who are desperate to eat at 4mo are the ones that do OK if they do start then?

OK shoot me down...

Oh and baby rice might not be so great, but you can mix it with other foods/some BM just to make them milder and easier to start on (eg just fruit by itself is quite acidic). After a month or so my DS loved avocado and banana from which he certainly could get a good calorie boost.

Baby rice won't make him put on weight! If anything it will fill his tummy more and make him take less milk making him lose even more weight.
Feeding him whenever he wants it is the best way to up your supply. It will take a couple of days for your body to adjust but you will soon start to make more.

My dd actually dropped a centile when I introduced formula (one bottle a day), I think because it filled her tummy more and so meant she took less milk

soapy ds3 ( now 9 months) has not put on any weight for three months .
He has gone from 75th centile in weight and height to 9th for weight and 50th for height he was also feeding loads. . It is a bit different for him because he is supposedly being weaned , except he doesn't like most foods he is offered (sack the chef).
I am now introducing some formula and he really likes it. His appetite seems to have picked up too and he looks like he's getting a little flesh on his boney body

sorry couldn't resist coming back
"There are no studies that show any benefit in giving solids before then, as well, which is just as valid a concern."
I think that's meaningless and wishy washy (bit strong sorry but do). I read one study which said there was no such thing as "teething" and the distress it caused was all in the mothers' imaginations. I give more weight to the experience of mothers tbh and as one poster said, things are different for different babies and mothers and situations. If the government guidelines were stopping mothers trying a bit of food on their babies before six months that's just crazy.

My ds was exclusively bf but was given solids at 17 weeks as at that time (early 2001) I didn't know any better. I didn't kow that the WHO guidelines at the time were "exclusively breatfeed for 4 to six months". I thought it was normal to wean then. I still bf him to 13 months and only introduced cow's milk at 12 months.

And ds did go on to suffer from a number of ear infections.

Now my take on that is usually "just think what he would have been like if I hadn't bf him" (as my brother and I, both also bf baby, had also suffered from ear infections when wee) - but looking at tiktok's study, maybe my weaning at 17 weeks did have an impact.

thing is barnacles, there are probably studies on a million different things to do with child nutrition, but it is proven that breastmilk is more calorific than baby rice,simply the fact that a milk feed is larger than a spoon or two of rice ! so for the OP , food won;t be the answer to her DS not gaining weight for 3 weeks.

point taken lulumama but oh dear.. re: infections and allergies ..i feel a vaccines comment coming on so must sod off accepting all arguments as valid with much respect x

"If the government guidelines were stopping mothers trying a bit of food on their babies before six months that's just crazy."

Why is it crazy, when there is a wealth of evidence to show that waiting until six months to introduce anything other than breast/formula milk is the best and safest thing?

Sorry, but I just don't buy the whole "I weaned my child at [whenever] and s/he's fine". Do what you will, but you cannot say that it has had no adverse effect. It may not pose am immediate threat to their life, but you simply do not know what effects it may have in ten/twenty/fifty years time.

But all you can do is your best with the information you have.

And when I weaned DS1 in 2001 that information was 4 months.

And when a health professional tells you you should be giving solids/formula/cream eggs whatever we generally take their advice because they are meant to have the answers.

Luckily the OP sought the opinion of MN, but so many take the 'professional' advice and trust it. And it makes me so mad when bad advice is given by HVs.

Rant over.

i think that is a good point foxy..

can you imagine weaning on creme eggs? the goo, the stickiness, the mess

But stripeymama there is the point that all babies are different. Yes, in general. most babies may have been shown to be healther when not weaned early. But that doesn't mean that it's not right for some babies. I had a 17-week old who would have eaten my toast given half a chance. He was desperate. Feeding him food felt right, he was giving me strong signs that it was what he wanted, and you know what, I think that has a part to play, alogside studies. Many studies are wrong. Many studies get superseded. And many studies are blunt instruments, based on a sample that may or may not be relevant. I do think we should take notice of them - I am a rationalist and very science-minded, but I also think if your 4-month old is obviously hungry and not happy with just BM, and your instinct is telling you so, I'm not sure that's all that much less important than a study done on babies in general.

The point about teething is a very good one. All kinds of studies and scientific opinions in the past have ignored mother's experiences as "irrational" and "imagined" and I'm not sure we're fully past that yet.