Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Original poster

17 week old and baby rice

283 replies

pamelat · 16/05/2008 09:37

Any opinions?

The health visitor has asked me to wait another week as she is still gaining weight well but she is cranky (and has been for 2 weeks or so), waking frequently at night, grabbing my toast (!) and crying when she cant have it.

I believe she is genuinely hungry, especially at night.

Health visitor said to put her in her own room instead as that could be why is waking so frequently but personally I would rather satisfy her hunger and have her near us?

I know that 17 weeks is meant to be the earliest you start it but what are the negatives for starting it at 17 weeks?

OP posts:
booge · 17/05/2008 23:16

She's too young.

tori32 · 17/05/2008 23:18

Not more nutritious but it keeps them more settled because they have the full feeling for longer.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 17/05/2008 23:18

DS couldnt give a flying fark about solids until 12 months.........

He's got beautiful milk teeth now.

Tori, your take on human and infant biology is interesting, but, it's not right.

hunkermunker · 17/05/2008 23:19

If Tori had had your DS first, then my DS2, I can guarantee she wouldn't be posting as she currently is, VVV! (How did it go today? Email me?)

Sorry, Tori, but you cannot post this stuff without backing it up with better research - well, any research, other than your own rose-tinted experience.

No, I wasn't suggesting that people wait to wean till a year - though there are perfectly healthy babies who are fine without much of anything else till this age - I know of a baby who only had bmilk till 14mo and in my grandparents' day, weaning wasn't done till between 9m and a year - my great aunt was shocked that DS1 was having food at 7mo.

VictorianSqualor · 17/05/2008 23:19

"Because its about how long food stays in the stomach not calorific content." Ah, I get it now, it's like that hungry baby milk and night time milk, no?

Make it harder to digest, they take longer til the next feed and sleep longer.
Artificial satisfaction rather than actually giving them what they need.

So we'll cut out some of their well needed nutrition and calories, replace it with something harder to digest, and bingo! We've done what we were meant to, got them to sleep.
I'm sure that's what nature intended....

VeniVidiVickiQV · 17/05/2008 23:20

So you are feeding them to settle them, not to provide them with key nutrition? Interesting......

Hunker, your boys are the biggest eaters I've ever come across!

VictorianSqualor · 17/05/2008 23:21

As for weanign at one, well have you not heard 'food until one s just for fun'? Babies do notneed food before around a year old, it's just that they are capable from about six months and it is seen as easier if you introduce them slowly over the next six months to different foods rather than suddenly say 'Oh, you're one, time for dinner'.

LittleMyDancing · 17/05/2008 23:22

There are lots of other factors involved in solids other than hunger, which given that milk has more calories is a complete red herring. For example, babies need to be able to sit up independently in order to chew and swallow without choking, which isn't likely at 4 months.

and with DS1, fwiw, we responded to his needs in the night with milk or cuddles when he needed them - he is now 2 and has never had a problem settling himself to sleep without help, sleeps through the night without problems and does not have 'bad sleep habits'.

VictorianSqualor · 17/05/2008 23:22

Ah, VVVQV, a wonderful x-post, saying what rambled on about in two simple sentences

hunkermunker · 17/05/2008 23:22

VVV, many's the time I've looked at the boys and thought thank fark it's not just me providing the calories.

They went to two parties today - DS2 sits and eats for a good chunk of any party he goes to He's such a lean thing though - not a spare ounce on him. It's the boinging he does!

kiskideesameanoldmother · 17/05/2008 23:24

baby's guts are ready to process foods other than milk at the microscopic level. I can't see how I cna look at a 4mo old baby, irregardless of his physical body size and say his gut is ready.

Just because a baby is on the 90th percentile does not mean that his gut more advanced than a baby on the 10th.

Bit of personal experience here. Dd at 4 months was given custard to eat by a well meaning friend who was saying that she was 'hungry'. DD lapped it up.

It turns out taht she is allergic to egg (found out less than a year ago) and when she was old enough for me to start to wean her properly, i discovered that she refuses anything with egg, including custard. She only took one spoon of the stuff. She is now 3 and still refuses egg and products with egg.

For me, just because a 4mo old is interested in food does not mean that he or she is ready for it. My dd hasn't eaten egg on an instictive and biological level for 3 yrs now. But she didn't seem 'ready' or 'able' to refuse it at 4 mo old.

Sidge · 17/05/2008 23:25

Oh, so you just want to fill them up to make them sleep longer??

Why not feed them pizza and 8 cans of Stella then - my DH sleeps for hours after that lot!

hunkermunker · 17/05/2008 23:27

It is a different mindset, I think - I breastfed the boys because it was important to me to do it and because I was lucky enough not to meet a health professional who hampered me enough to stop me. I weaned at 6m (bit later for DS2) because I digested enough of the research and was OK with being the sole source of nutrition that long (heck, my breasts have sustained two people for the sum of a year - I love that!) because I believed that research.

It's very difficult to argue against homespun logic like Tori's - because there's a kernel of "common sense" in there - although she's coming at the whole issue from a different angle - that of goal of sleeping through, it seems.

kiskideesameanoldmother · 17/05/2008 23:28

LOl. DD had lots and lots of teeth by 1yo but she still wasn't interested in solid foods. I suspect being allergic to cow's milk and eggs played a huge role in her choosing when they time was right for her. She didn't wean till she was 13 months and chose to wean on Peppered German Salami pilfered from my plate.

this thread has taken a turn towards the Twilight Zone.

LittleMyDancing · 17/05/2008 23:30

Why is sleeping through such a flipping holy grail? We all knew when we took on motherhood that the hours were lousy and the pay even worse - but I'd far rather get up in the night to bring up a happy and secure baby than listen to him wail with the purpose of 'getting my life back'?

some babies need more night time comfort than others, some need more milk than others, them's the breaks, it's no reflection on our parenting skills.

VictorianSqualor · 17/05/2008 23:32

Well hunker, well done you, I BF cos I'm a lazy bint

But, no, seriously, I get really fed up with this goal of sleeping through, what exactly have you managed in accomplishing it, really?
Putting your childs nutritional needs first? No.
Teaching your child something new and exciting?
No.
Forcing your child to sleep longer because their stomach is full as you ahev given them somehting they may not be physically ready for? Ah, that's the one, I really hope for your child's sake that they were one of the ones that is ready at 17weeks, not that you could ever tell.

hunkermunker · 17/05/2008 23:34

Well, that too - I was too lazy to type that reason, VS

hunkermunker · 17/05/2008 23:34

I've just read the OP.

Howzat for shit MN etiquette?

Negatives include invoking my wrath, OP, clearly

VictorianSqualor · 17/05/2008 23:35

Now that's terrible, I always read at least the first five messages before I jump in with my opinion.

StarlightMcKenzie · 17/05/2008 23:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VictorianSqualor · 17/05/2008 23:41

SMcK, bm is also digested mroe easily than FM, which is why formula fed babies can often sleep longer, as it takes longer. BM is digested really easily so the amount plus digestion time is quite small when worked out.
FWIW Alex had some EBM the first time the other day as DP was desperate to feed him, he took 6 ounces EBM and then a full breastfeed, granted only one breast but he was only 3weeks old!

hunkermunker · 17/05/2008 23:42

I read threads flipped so got stuck halfway down and decided to reply then. Not my usual habit, def!

StarlightMcKenzie · 17/05/2008 23:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

kiskideesameanoldmother · 17/05/2008 23:44

i think i will wean the next one on pureed cardboard at 12 weeks.

that will fill 'er up for 12 hrs and I will get my life back.

CHOCOLATEPEANUT · 17/05/2008 23:44

pamelot

you sound exhausted.

You have to do what you think is right.As you will gather thete are lots of different opnions out there and BF mums do tend to BF only for longer than a FF mum and do tend to leave weaning till much later.

I ff both mine.I weaned dd at 14 weeks on advice from h visitor and am weaning 5.5 mth ds now.

Both slept in own room from 8 weeks and both have slept through from early on.

They are healthy,happy and contented.So am I

Good luck with whatever you choose to do
x