Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Food/recipes

For related content, visit our food content hub.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

3.5 months - too early to start on baby rice?

34 replies

Maiakins · 12/09/2004 20:39

My dd was a very big baby - almost 10lb at birth and continues to be in the 98th percentile. I breastfeed her, but over the last 2 weeks it doesn't seem to be enough. She gets very hungry after 2 hours and is waking more in the night-time. She is also putting everything in her mouth and gets very upset if she sees anyone else feeding.

Do you think 3.5 months is too early to start introducing a tiny bit of baby rice? I know 4-6 months is the time that most people advise starting, but since she was such a big baby I'm thinking it might be ok now. Did anyone else have a big baby at birth and what was your experience?

OP posts:

hercules · 12/09/2004 20:42

The recommendations are 6 months and def not before 17 weeks. BM has more calories anyway.

beansmum · 12/09/2004 20:46

i don't really know but everything I've read or been told has said to wait until at least 4 months before giving anything other than milk. most reccomendations say to wait until 6 months

My ds is the same age as your dd and is feeding every 2 hours during the day, probably just going through a growth spurt or something? not much help sorry, you should probably ask your health visitor before giving any baby rice anyway.

hope someone more helpful comes along

beansmum · 12/09/2004 20:48

really embarrassed by my terrible spelling

misdee · 12/09/2004 20:54

when dd1 was born recommendation was 4months, she started on solidas about 14/15weeks as she was the same as your dd with regards to hunger.

With dd2 the recommendation was just changing to 6months, but she went onto baby rice at 4months.

Could u try feeding loads in the evenings before settling her to bed to see if she goes longer then? Its around this age they get interested in food, i remember dd1 trying to get my brother in laws bowl of noodles and getting stressed as she couldnt grab them.

cab · 12/09/2004 20:57

It's AMAZING how quickly advice changes. When dd was a baby (she's now 4) the advice was 16lbs or 16 weeks, whatever comes first - she was the last of her peer group to start weaning at just over 5 months. But NOW they're saying that's too early ??!!!

As I'm finally pregnant again and might be at this stage in a year or so could anyone tell me why the advice has changed? (Assume it's, eczema/asthma related). Ta.

misdee · 12/09/2004 20:59

Asha/ezcema/rise in allergies/digestion problems etc. thats as far as i can make out with the new guidelines.

hercules · 12/09/2004 21:00

The WHO have said 6 months for over 9 years but it is only fairly recently out health system took it on board. It is not new advice.

misdee · 12/09/2004 21:00

mean asthma not asha

cab · 12/09/2004 21:15

Ta folks - I'll obviously have to get myself a bit more up to date. They'll probably be saying bottle feeding's best by the time this one is born

toddlerbob · 13/09/2004 01:52

Breast milk has more calories than baby rice. If she is on the 98th percentile then you are obviously doing a great job and should keep going. 3.5 months is too early, her gut is still very immature, growing quickly does not mean that her gut will mature any faster than a small baby.

She gets upset at other people eating because they are not paying her attention. Putting everything in her mouth is a developmental stage and is not linked to hunger at this age.

In short, yes it's too early.

Davros · 13/09/2004 21:50

Presumably advice can change due to more research and evidence? There's threads on MN somewhere with links to the WHO stuff, I trawled through a while ago to show someone that its serious stuff.

zaphod · 13/09/2004 22:56

My ds 3 was 9lb 15oz, and was also on the 98th percentile. Many people seemed surprised that I fed such a big baby myself. TBH it sounds like your baby is just going through a growth spurt. I would hold off on the solids until at least 5 months if I were you. My ds got his first solids at 5 1/2 months. He was my biggest baby, but his appetite was just the same as the other four. I honestly don't think the size of a baby makes a difference to the amount he feeds. I always understood that breast milk tailors itself to the need of the child, and the quality and not the quantity matters. BTW he is now 2.5 and the size of a big 3 year old, even though people told me that at 8 months he would be the same size as other babies his age.

Joanne69 · 13/09/2004 23:29

My daughter was 9lb100z at birth and was breastfed until bang on 6 months when I started on solids. Thankfully she has always been a good sleeper and even at 6 months she showed no signs of being hungry, she has stayed on the 98th percentile too so its not as if she isnt gaining the weight. However, a friend who has had a baby at the same time and is a lot smaller has had really bad nights ever since she was born, introduced solids earlier hoping it would solve the problem and it hasnt made any difference, still waking up every 3 hours at 8 months old wanting to be fed. Friend now regrets giving solids so early. I started solids also at 6 months with my first daughter but she was a lot smaller at birth. I would hold out a little bit longer if you can.

Ghosty · 14/09/2004 01:44

Ok ...
My DS was 10lbs at birth. He was bottle fed from 6 weeks (recently I read that it doesn't matter when you wean a bottle fed baby ... but I don't know how that makes sense).
I was advised to wean him early (by my HV and GP) ... I started giving him baby rice at 13 weeks - no signs of allergies or anything and he is very very healthy at nearly 5 years old ...
DD was 10lbs 10oz. Breastfed. Huge baby, off the scale. I held out till 18 weeks this time. When they say Breastmilk has more calories it is obviously true so the way I approached weaning was not to REPLACE BM with solids but to SUPPLEMENT the BM with solids. So she continued breastfeeding as much as before I just added baby rice AFTER her mid morning feed. When she was 5 months I added another meal (again AFTER the feed)
I only dropped a breastfeed when she was 6.5 months old and having 3 meals a day.
She is now 7.5 months, has 3/4 breastfeeds a day, 3 meals a day and is still huge and off the scale ...

Hope that helps a bit ...

Original poster

Maiakins · 14/09/2004 09:39

Thanks so much everyone for your words of wisdom. I'm going to see if this is just a growth spurt and try to hold off for a little while longer. Zaphon, Ghosty and Joanne ... really interesting to hear the perspectives of other people with big babies! Thanks y'all!

OP posts:

lipsty · 18/09/2004 22:05

DD is now 3.5 months and I've just started giving her a few spoonfuls of baby rice and fruit puree. It started as a way of introducing a bottle teat as I wanted to boost breast feeding with formula once a day. Letting her take a small spoon of "food" has encouraged her to take a bottle too. I'm happier as she's happier now and, although I realise it's probably too early to wean, I haven't seen any ill effects. I did exactly the same for my son (who's now a strapping, healthy 8 year old). I think that 4 months is a very arbitrary decision - after all, all babies are different and if weaning early causes any problems, most responsible parents would rethink and try again at a later stage. I've been really disappointed by my hv's advice. DD wasn't putting on much weight with just bf yet despite the poor little thing's obvious hunger, I was actively discouraged from trying anything else. Yes, I felt dreadful giving her formula and baby rice etc but all I wanted was to have a happier baby!

mears · 18/09/2004 23:11

Lipsty - the problem is that formula and solids does not boost breastfeeding - it can cause a decline. The best way to boost breastfeeding is to feed more often. Exclusive breastfeeding is advised till 6 months of age because that is all a baby actually needs. The problem is that not all mums feel that they can keep up with the demand - it can mean frequent feeds as the baby boosts the milk supply. Gaining weight is not the only factor for a thriving baby. My DD put on little weight compared to her brothers - she was just different. Everyone has to make their own choices though.

Smellycat · 19/09/2004 13:08

The world health organisation recommend breastfeeding till 6 months as a 'global' recommendation mainly because there are children out there in third world countries who simply won't get the nutrition we have here - so the longer on the boob the better.

However, a baby's digestive system takes time to mature which is why health visitors recommend at least 16 weeks before solids.

As a mum though (and having been through it too) I am sure a little baby rice at 3.5 months is fine if you've a big baby, chances are he/she has matured pretty well. Go with your own instincts bearing in mind the notes above. When faced with a motherly dilema I always ask myself what would our grandmothers have done! We're all OK aren't we?

mears · 19/09/2004 13:18

The recommendation is not just for the third world benefit which is a ciommon misconception. Baby weight does not correlate directly with gut maturity. The earlier solids are started, there are possible impacts on health in adult life. That is why there is the recommendation to delay as long as possible.

hercules · 19/09/2004 13:35

Actually smellycat the recommendations are not aimed at developing countries. A babies gut does not develop faster just because the baby weighs more.
As for grandmothers, in the 20's and 30's (aloha) the recommendations were no solids until 9/10 months.

80sMum · 19/09/2004 13:52

My dd was 4 weeks prem, and weighed 5 1/2 lbs. She was BF but I was also told to give her top-up feeds of Soya formula (Wysoy, I think it was called). Anyway, she didn't grow as rapidly as the HV would've liked and I was instructed to put her on baby rice at 3.5 months, when she weighed a little over 9 lbs. From then on I fed her as one would a weaning baby, with gradually increasing amounts of solids. The general recommnedation at the time was to begin solids at 15 lbs or 4 months. At one year old dd weighed just 14 lbs. She remained tiny and was below the 3rd percentile till she was 12, then suddenly started to gain weight. She's now 21, 9 stone and beautiful! All those years of worrying about her were unneccessary, as she caught up in the end with her peers. What I'm really saying is that all babies are different and have different needs at different times; you can't really apply a blanket rule.

hercules · 19/09/2004 13:58

But 80smum, you were given crap advice. Noone is saying it is a blanket rule but rice at this age is simply unecessary and can cause problems in later life.

hercules · 19/09/2004 14:00

Some babies will be ready just before 6 months , some after. My dd was 8lbs 10 and only started on solids properly by the time she was 7 months. I tried at 6 months and kept offering but she only really took at 7 months.

80sMum · 19/09/2004 14:19

I take your point, Hercules, but I think the HV (and me too) was just worried that DD wasn't gaining enough weight on BF and top-up bottles alone. I wasn't all that happy about about it, as DS had been a 'textbook' baby - ie BF till he was 4 months, then gradually weaned. But DD was such a skinny little thing, we were all worried and it seemed the best move at the time. I hope it's done no lasting harm; there's certainly no evidence of that. Advice does tend to change over the years. I have a lovely old medical book of my grandmother's. Some of the 'advice' in there would make your hair curl!

mears · 19/09/2004 15:46

This is interesting regarding weightgain

There is far too much emphasis put on weight gain IMO. Mothers end up reducing their baby's breastmilk intake which is far more important in nutritional terms than formula/solids on the hope of laying dowm fate stores.

Flip

1 2