17 week old and baby rice

[pamelat]

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?

tori you are being very extreme here to try and prove your 'point' and really clutching at straws

so knowing your dc could suffer later in life you'll wean early anyway?

bizarre

really bizarre

v smug too

Erm, aside from anything else, I don't understand the concept of a bf / co-sleeping / not sleep-training mum suffering? Actually, the idea of sleep training / baby in a different room or bed would be more likely to cause any suffering to me (and I'm just too plain lazy to ff). I'm pretty sure that sleep training my baby would leave me distressed and having a baby sleeping in a different room would ruin my night's sleep as I'm sure I'd lie there all night straining to hear out if the baby was ok, or getting up to go and check on them (as I did the first few nights dd moved out of our room at 18 months - very weird not having her lying next to me and being able to hear her!)

I realise that everyone is different and we all react in different ways, but just got a bit miffed at the idea that I'm some sort of suffering martyr just because I co-sleep/bf. Actually I find that it makes my life much easier.

To the OP - sorry to butt in and not even respond to your question, but there are better posts on this thread than I could come up with regarding the reasons and research that suggests waiting until 6 months to wean

tori I know all about the guideline it was written because the hospital has to have one for everything not because any weaning takes place there and I would certainly not use it as an expert guide to weaning the the dieticians there know fark all about weaning healthy infants as they never see them
you cannot compare weaning healthy infants with sick ones that is an argument that does not hold up

tori, did you actually read that article you linked to?

"Some babies may benefit from solids sooner and may be ready for solids from 4 months (17 weeks of age). Each baby should be assessed on its needs for solids individually. Discuss this with your ward dietitian." The dietitian that is probably able to find out how ready for solids your babies tummy is and as all guidelines have said it just confirms that some babies are ready for weaning from 17 weeks.

Where has anyone disputed this fact? I can't find the bit about instinct though, or is that what ward dietitian means in code?

It also says babies must keep up their full milk intake before a feed, so isn't trying to replace milk with solids to make a baby sleep, but add it to the diet for ill babies who may need a lot of extra nutrients.

Giving a milk feed first is what I would consider to be standard practice when weaning anyway, certainly not to initially replace milk with food.
http:/www.clinicalanswers.nhs.uk/index.cfm?question=7963
is also an interesting link because it catagorically states that the studies show no link between allergies/ eczema and asthma with early weaning.
As for proving my point, as I said, if weaning is acceptable in sick children at 4mths then I find it difficult to conceed that well children will have ill effects from it.
PS The only way to look at gut function would be to scope every patient to see internally or CT/MRI. Blatantly just because a patient is on a ward does not mean they will have these procedures. Therefore staff are no more suited to assess this than a mother.
The WHO guidelines cover all countries and massive continents where AIDS/HIV are prevalent and in which case weaning at 6mths or later is advised due to compromised immunity and more susceptibility to infection.
I still believe that in the western world there is little need to wait until 6mths if you don't want to for your own personal reasons.

tori a clinical guideline is no tevidence that weaning sick children at 4 months goes on I can tell you catagorically that it does not most of these children will be given supplemental calories in a manner which does not include baby rice or pureed carrots

It makes perfect sense to me that sick babies must each be treated individually. You throw general population guidelines out of the window and you do whatever needs to be done for that baby.

But that's paediatric territory. Not "mother's intinct". Not "hungry babies".

To read that comment and say "Therefore I would conclude that the risk must be minimal if at all different at 4mths from 6mths" is utterly nonsensical. The person who wrote it would no doubt be horrified if they knew you were drawing such an illogical conclusion from the text.

There is objective evidence that anything other than exclusively breatfeeding a baby increases not just their risk of infection, but the chance of being hospitalised for infection. That implies a fairly profound effect on immunity. What anyone does with that information is entirely up to them. But it's no longer a matter of opinion.

And as for your comment about your dd1 being perfectly healthy, here's one I prepared earlier.

Isn't the point that with sick babies, it's still the child's health that is taking priority in the decision?

whereas weaning early for "personal reasons" is not really in the same category....

And you can't extrapolate from sick babies to well ones!

I'm sorry to have to put this so starkly, but when a baby has CF, considerations about their cardiovascular risk at age 60 aren't really going to take precedence, are they.

My point is that obviously there are huge benefits to ex bf until 6mths, not everyone breast feeds and so wouldn't get the benefits anyway. If its a choice between weaning early and continuing to breast feed or feeding formula then the best option is bf and wean at 4mths.
If I get to 4mths and am feeding dd2 around the clock I would prefer to start weaning on small amounts to satisfy her than give up due to being shattered and miserable and use formula.
Obviously you will not see where I am coming from, but thats what I think and frankly it makes no difference to me whether you agree or not. My choice and my opinion.
If people expect researched advice they go to the appropriate website and look it up. The OP asked for experiences and opinions.

But it's got nothing to do with bf or ff! It's very simply about whether babies guts are ready for solids.

why is this a bf/ff issue, tori?

And FWIW people do much worse things, like smoke and drink while breast feeding, take drugs, let children have dummies until school age to ruin their teeth, give unsuitable food and drink to make them obese. The point being that nobody does everything by the rule book. You could breast feed until they were 21 but they would still be obese if you wean at 6mths and give the wrong food.

I don't see why it's a choice between bf and wean at 4 months, or bf and ff at 4 months.

surely it's better to switch to ff at 4 months if it's becoming difficult to bf, than to go to solids which may cause harm?

The OP asked if it would help her baby sleep. Due to food being in the stomach longer than milk, as its harder to digest, the chances are that it will make the baby feel fuller for longer and thus give her a longer stretch of sleep. Breast milk is digested quicker than formula or solid food and in my personal experience bf babies go shorter times between feeds.
Again my opinion.

little dancing is right this has nothing to do with bf/ff the advice is the same to wean at 6 mths so how you can come to the conclusion that bf and early weaning is better I have no idea

tori you my only be able to give your opinion but there are many people here who are able to use scientific evidence to back up their arguments not a study with a sample of one

yes the op asked for opinions but that doesn't mean people can't give informed ones and not everybody knows where to look for valid information posting informed opinion is a lot more helpful imho than posting anecdotal advice

No it wouldn't be better to go onto ff because then the baby would loose out on the antibodies from breast milk that are the so called miracle cure to everything

tori advising people to stuff their babies with food rather than bf them is such bad advice you will be telling her to put a rusk in the bottle next

Thing is Tori, if you b/feed exclusively and follow your baby's cues, then your b/milk will adapt to meet your baby's needs. If you are feeding around the clock for a week or so, your milk will become more plentiful in supply. It also tends to become more calorie concentrated as a baby gets older too. So, if you just crack on, instead of substituting your body's natural responses, you might find that your excl b/fed baby can continue to be excl b/fed and wont need (less calorific) solids.

This is the whole point of exclusive b/feeding. You let nature take it's course (CF and other major infant illnesses aside ).

Actually the OP asked for the negatives related to weaning early - which lots of very well informed people have kindly provided.

dosing a child with Medised every night might make them sleep better, but it still doesn't mean it's advisable.

Drinking whilst bfing DOES NOT AFFECT THE BABY.

And the only person turning this into a breastfeeding crusade, as I can only assume your sarcastic words about miracle cures imply, is you, tori.

noone else has made this about bf or ff. It is plain and simply about weaning onto solids early, whether the baby is large, small, in a developed country, undeveloped country, bf, ff or suckled by wolves.

The way the OP posted implies she wants to wean early but won't if there is evidence of significant risk. I just put the other side across to say its highly unlikely that her dd will come to harm because of it. Yes there is a risk, but a very small one.
To put it in perspective we take risks that are calculated every day. I take a risk letting dd walk without reins going to nursery- its measured, I hold her hand and teach her about traffic. She could still break free and get run over but its not likely. (Although statistically more probable than her getting bowel problems from weaning at 4mths).

suckled by wolves PMSL.

Cant beleive this is rumbling on. Tori - am quite shocked really by your attitude esp to the research by WHO when as nurses our practice is based on evidence based research such as WHO. It is part of our NMC Prof Standards.

Also blindly putting your faith in HCP who may not be up to date on latest practice is worrying and as a nurse you should be striving for that evidence to ensure you practice is most up to date else people can get stuck in the old ways. Plently of times i have had duff breastfeeding advice.

Also ds2 is a lovely 17lb10oz and 20 weeks. Is he on solids.. NO. Why? because he is gaining weight well still, is contented, feeds well from breast (albeit frequently at times), is alert etc etc. Is his body physically mature enough for solids? Well no i dont believe so and i dont see the point in rushing in for my own benefits of extended sleep etc etc. They are little for a short time and our duty is to provide for them in the best way possible.

toir - where are these statistics? You are seriously on dodgy ground giving advice like that without backing with evidence. Should know better given your profession!