Apparently the latest advice is NOT to delay introducing solids until 6 months??

[phdlife]

Took dd to be weighed today and the nurse said I could start introducing other foods. I rather snippily said that wasn't the best advice I was aware of, did she have any research?

Surprised (and I must say, impressed) when she dragged out a bulging folder and showed me two articles with sections highlighted etc. Alas, with dd trying to suck my thumbnail off and ds falling asleep on the floor I did not have the wit to take down the references - am rather hoping some MNer with PubMed access can check for me?

Here's all that I can remember: One article was 2008, the other 2007. The 2007 one was a position statement; Peter J. Smith was one of several authors on the 2008 one; they were both about "complementary foods" (or feeding?); iirc one of the journals was something like "Paediatric Immunology and Allergies"???

Am sorry to be so vague - I was pretty floored by this info and a few other things she said, but she seemed pretty cluey, would really like more info if anyone can help!

agree welliemum. However if you know who to listen to (tiktok I'm-a lookin' at you, ma'am ) MN can be a reasonable substitute for those of us who simply don't have time or brainspace to chase the research ourselves.

quite right alittleteapot congrats to you

"But it bothers me enormously that people are so removed from the research world that when a controversial issue pops up, it doesn't even occur to them to go and read up stuff for themselves."

Without the training it is too hard to put the latest research on controversial issues into context. That is why we rely on the trained professionals in the NHS to do it for us.

a quick hijack

well, helloooooo there, phdlife - how the hell are you?? It's been yonks! I've only skim read the thread (ha ha - how topical!) but have gathered that DD is pretty big by now - how old? And how is your cute DS? DS1 was talking about him the other day when we were near the norwegian church. DS2 is 5 and a half months.

Riven, look here

I don't mind OAPs and disabled people getting discounts and seats, though. Their need is greater and all that. Do mind able-bodied teenagers who are getting a free ride and taking up a seat (in London).

But I'm probably just bitter because mine seems to have been the last generation where you had to give up your seat to an adult.

Completely wrong thread!

hiya wellies - I'll email you tonight! dd is 4m now and about 8kgs already.

Reading more than the abstract of research papers generally costs money, as well, unless you're in the right profession (not sure how access works for HCPs in the NHS, but it's certainly a disincentive for me to read everything, although I do try to read the abstracts and occasionally cough up for an individual paper).

I think it'd be unrealistic to expect parents to read original research if they've no training - and even if they have the training, they probably won't have the time.

My beef is more with people who're prepared to argue a position on the internet without having checked the facts. For example every now and again there's a thread about the new guidelines for making up formula, and there seem to be plenty of people who're happy to rubbish the advice, but have never read the guideline and don't know the reason for the change.

Not to mention the old "WHO weaning advice is only for the developing world" myth. A non-technical summary of the advice is right there on the WHO website for anyone to read.

I think it's fair to say that if you're going to publically disagree with guidelines of the calibre of the WHO's, it's a good idea to have actually read what the guidelines say at some point.

Then you have St Tiktok who can always back up her excellent advice.

(LOL at 'saint'.... )

It's true you need to have some connection with an academic institution to read a lot of scientific papers, or some sort of professional sub, and while I don't know in full what the rules/benefits are for HCPs, I don't think it is hard for them to get hold of relevant papers.

Most of the important stuff is free access to everyone - WHO guidelines, Cochrane 'plain language' versions of reviews, UK department of health statements and guidance. They're usually written in a way that most people can manage easily enough, and a bit of common sense on top of that is useful...so we don't get people posting 'I know what the guidelines say but I think they're rubbish because I did XYZ with my kids and they're fine' or similar.

Well, my mother's first cousin rolled out of a first floor window and through a skylight to the ground when she was about 5 months, and she was fine[#], so clearly anyone who thinks their baby is ready to roll out of windows should just go for it and ignore the ravings of the not-rolling-out-of-windows mafia nazis who suggest that it might cause problems in some cases. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that windows-related advice is focused on developing countries that don't have our system of building regulations and planning approval, so it's impossible to generalise.

[#] This is actually true

I think it's ok for people to say "I did XYZ despite the guidelines, for these reasons" - but that's different from saying "the guidelines are rubbish because I didn't follow them and my kids are fine".

@ PaL

Yes, exactly.

i started solids when my baby started trying to grab food of my plate. the clearest and most natural sign in my opinion that she was ready.

isnt it shame that all the bloody guidelines do nothng more than confuse us and turn of our natural instincts.

should confess i am blw'er with a 10 month old who now happily eats with a spoon. despite HV telling me a while back that she would have trouble eating with knife and fork if blw'ed.

christ there is some claptrap around

This has been a really interesting thread- thanks OP for starting.

I've got a 20wk DD and I was planning to hold on the "magic date" of 26wks to start weaning but I now may well start sooner. I've also just noticed DD watching me eat and drink. If I try and eat breakfast whilst feeding her she will totally stop feeding and watch me instead. I think this is a good sign.

DD (now 4) was started on purees at 4 months because that was the advice at the time. Friends who have had babies more recently say they have had problems with current advice of 6 months so I fully intend to ignore the 6 month advice with DS (almost 3 months).

Knowing a bit about allergies (as someone who has a few rather severe ones), it seems highly unlikely to me that giving carrot or apple puree a few weeks before or after will make DS develop allergies that weren't there. Also, if anyone's interested, presence of allergies in the family means very little in determining likelihood of allergies in your baby. I'm the only allergic person in our entire family tree, and so are the majority of people with allergies I know.

These guidelines are obviously not gospel, so frankly, it's probably not worth it to worry so much over the exact moment of introducing the courgette.

The only thing I would worry about are anaphylactic allergies to known allergens - peanuts, strawberries, eggs, etc - and it would be a good idea to have anti-histamines at hand and to touch them to hands and then to side of mouth before feeding them to your child.

I met a friend for lunch earlier, her DD is 23 wks. She has starting waking up in night many times, tried several times to grab my sandwich and put it in her mouth, and was staring at my plate and crying. Mum is agitated by the now constant bf demands.

Mum said that she has been told not to start solids until at least 26 weeks to avoid allergies. I may be oversensitive - and yes its not my business - but the baby was obviously bleeding hungry. Am not sure such rigid guidance helps as some poeple will follow guidelines to the letter (the rule-followers). I think the 4-6 month advice seems sensible, and allows parents to exercise intelligence and flexibility.

I weaned at around 5 months when the poor thing was physically wrestling toast and marmite out of my hand! No allegies despite being a rebellious and thoroughly naughty month early!

That wasn't the official advice at the time, though, Cote. Official guidelines have been 26 weeks since (I believe) 2003 and were certainly 26 weeks in 2004/5 (I also have a 4yo). Which doesn't, I'm sure, change what you're planning to do but does illustrate just how well HVs have promoted the official guidelines (i.e. not very).

UK recommended age to start solids changed to 6 mths (26 weeks) in 2003. Before then the age was 4 - 6 mths, so there was really very little change...except the 4-6 mths guidance was widely (wrongly) interpreted as 4 mths on the dot, or even 16 weeks.

The current guidance includes a recommendation that babies who show signs of wanting or needing solid food before this can be 'encouraged'.

Who could argue with any of this?

themachinist - a baby of 23 weeks who is being breastfed according to 'request' will not be hungry - let alone 'obviously bleeding hungry'. I don't believe a baby would stare at your plate and cry at it. Really. I don't believe it. She might have been looking the plate. She might have been crying. But she wouldn't cry at the plate - because a) if she was hungry she could be breastfed b) she would not associate what you had on your plate with something to assuage hunger.

Having said that, most babies of 23 weeks who are capable of grabbing a piece of bread and putting it into their mouths do not need to be stopped - if they are not yet capable of solids they will swallow hardly anything. A baby with a tendency to allergies might well be discouraged from having bread, though, until a wee bit older.

But what drives healthy, well-fed babies to grab food at this age is not hunger.

What is the driver, tiktok? Is it simply exploration? Why is it seen as a genuine sign that a baby is ready to begin eating food?

chessier - we can infer it's not hunger, simply because babies of that age don't actually need solids to satisfy hunger, if hunger = need for fuel/calories. Milk doesn't suddenly stop being able to meet the need for calories at 6 mths - the amount of solids taken in the early days is typically tiny, anyway, and unlikely to make a difference in terms of any calorie deficit.

If you watch a baby of, say, six months or so, with food, feeding himself in BLW fashion - how much actually gets in and down into his tum? Often, very little. If a baby of this age manages to eat a quarter of a banana he's doing pretty well and that's about 30 calories. That's not much compared to the 600 or 700 calories he's likely to get from breastmilk. He's enjoying the banana, it's giving him food, but at the moment, he's not really eating it 'cos he's desperately hungry, I would say.

just wanted to say that if it was dangerous to introduce solids before 6 months how do the babyfood companies get away with writing from 4 to 6 months on the little jars of mush?

I weaned DD at 4 months as was the advice then (she is now 8)
How could they have been so wrong to be 2 months out?
Surely we could all sue the DoH then for causing our children allergies with bogus advice? (my daughter doesn't have any allergies by the way)

It's not 'dangerous' to introduce solids before 6 mths, though, framey.

There may be some increase in risk of allergy in susceptible infants (though the jury is still out on that one).

The main reason for the change from 4-6 mths to 6 mths is the systematic reviews of the literature which show a policy of exclusive bf to 6 mths does not affect children's growth and health adversely and has some protection against illness.

Babyfood companies have a vested interest in resisting any changes to their labelling, and should be (IMO) made to label them in a way that promotes health - but no one is suggesting that solids at 4 mths is actually going to do serious harm to the majority of babies. Most really don't need 'em, though.

Thanks for the answer, tiktok. So is the reaching for and wanting food simply a sign of interest, as babies can show interest in anything new, or a developmental sign that a particular child is ready for food?

I don't know, chessiers - I think it's a judgement you'd make with common sense, alongside other signs, inc the baby's age.