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

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Weaning dilemma

41 replies

wilbur · 29/12/2005 13:48

Ds2 is coming up to 21 weeks old, and I'm facing a decision about whether or not to wean him early. He is currently fully breastfed, but for the last couple of weeks has started waking at around 5am starving hungry (he had been sleeping through to past 7am for the previous 6 weeks or so). I have been topping him up with ebm after the evening feed - he took almost 6 extra ounces last night - but that doesn't seem to help. It may be that my milk supply is a bit low, it certainly doesn't seem to be as generous as previously, but he is quite happy during the day, not crying with hunger.

I don't know whether to wean him onto a few solids now, or try to increase his day time milk feeds as well as the evening one. I can't imagine we're going to get to the magic 6 months on milk alone. When ds1 and dd were babies the weaning advice was different and they were weaned at 18 weeks and 20 weeks respectively (I delayed it a bit for them as we are a very allergic family and I was trying to follow all allergy-reducing suggestions, so far they are fine).

Any thoughts?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

PantomimEDAMe · 31/12/2005 15:34

Second Hercules - what a load of tosh! Unless he's got reliable evidence that every single fussy eater wasn't weaned until six months. Which he hasn't.
It's tough to ride out because the world and his wife will nag you about weaning just at the point where babies have a growth spurt and start demanding more milk/waking more frequently. It's one of the topics where most people are ill-informed and everyone thinks they are an expert and can do better than you. Along with most other aspects of parenting.

hercules · 31/12/2005 15:39

I agree it is tough to do so when everyone tells you what you're doing is wrong. My head hv weighed dd at 5 months and said her weight was fine. Asked me what she was eating and I said nothing. She was gobsmacked and said she needed to be on solids now. I asked why as she had said her weight was fine and she just said she needed to be. I explained about 10 year WHO guidance and her own own gov health dept recommendations and she said she's never heard of either.

SHe pulled out a leaflet she gave to all mums which recommended 4 months and we looked at its date and it was several years old.

Madness.....

NewYearsRacerLution · 31/12/2005 16:13

Hercules I am ed! Was this soon after the new recommendations? That is the only excuse and even then rather a thin one. I don't work in the health profession but in education and not in a highly responsible position either but I still make sure I'm up to date on things on which I advise. I find it hard to credit that someone in the profession would not have heard about it. Hopefully now she is more aware and supportive of those trying to wean at around 6m not 4.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

MummyDayDream · 31/12/2005 16:16

Wasn't meaning to sound contentious, just reporting what I was told!!!!!
Although I do somehow feel obliged to point out that the paediatrician involved was female. - Apparently she also said that the 6 month thingy is pushed by the WHO mainly with reference to developing countries, where it's particularly important not to start solids early due to the tendency to use water in the preparation of first foods, which is very dangerous if the purity of the water cannot be guaranteed. She claimed to have had more referrals with eating problems since the 6 month rule became more widely used, due to babies missing the 'optimal' time to start. Please don't shoot me down in flames, I'm just feeding back (no pun intended) on the conversation with my HV!

hunkermunker · 31/12/2005 16:22

There are a handful of big-shot paediatricians who talk utter shit, I've found. Sadly their position of "power" means they're often taken very seriously.

I know you're only repeating what you've heard from your HV, but honestly, it's rubbish. Babies were often not weaned until close to a year (9m+ at the earliest) and were absolutely fine. The "weaning window" or "optimum time for introducing solids" is crap - how can spooning milk-textured bland tastes into a baby be considered as anything like eating will be for the rest of their lives?

Wonder how many referrals this paed's had of early-weaned children who won't eat lumpy food?!

hunkermunker · 31/12/2005 16:23

Oh, and paed being a woman is irrelevant IMO - most of these mental HVs are women and it doesn't stop them promoting lunacy at every turn

hercules · 31/12/2005 16:24

It's an old wives tale about there being a window for weaning and the WHO advice relates to all babies and is not aimed at developing countries only - again another old wives tale.

TIs sad that so many are misinformed but true that few are bf experts.

hercules · 31/12/2005 16:25

The trouble is saying that there is a time for weaning otherwise there may be trouble eating just doesnt even have any rational to it.

hercules · 31/12/2005 16:26

WOnder how cave people managed without liquidisers.......

hunkermunker · 31/12/2005 16:28

I'm really looking forward to taking this baby to the clinic and seeing the HV there

MummyDayDream · 31/12/2005 16:32

..Just suddenly feel (having regurgitated dodgy info) that I need to reiterate that ds is still thriving (21 weeks and 21lbs!) on bf alone....

PantomimEDAMe · 31/12/2005 16:33

Paediatricians, bless them, are experts in diseases and injuries that affect children. Normal child development is not really their field, apart from as a reference point for sick children.

NotQuiteCockney · 31/12/2005 17:00

I do think there is a window for weaning ... but I think it's more a matter of "sometime before they're 2", not "quick, now, at 16 weeks!".

I also do agree that rigid adherance to the 6 months rule is probably a bit silly. I started solids for DS2 at 25.5 weeks. He didn't actually ingest anything for another 4 weeks, so sitting watching the clock for that extra half a week wouldn't really have made any difference!

I have heard of lots of kids referred to speech therapists for language issues, who only eat purees and pringles. Very sad.

And the best argument for waiting until 6 months - you can skip purees entirely! Just give finger food and table scraps! Don't freeze anything, don't lug pointless little jars or pots about, don't chain yourself to the luquidizer.

bobbybobbobbingalong · 31/12/2005 20:25

I've taken ds (as a model) to the whole 2 hour session that trainee doctors get to spend with normally developing preschool children. I knew more about child development (from Mumsnet!) than they did when they came in, and I'm pretty sure that I still knew more when I came out.

aviatrix · 01/01/2006 22:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

pablopatito · 03/01/2006 12:08

Hercules wrote "It's an old wives tale about there being a window for weaning and the WHO advice relates to all babies and is not aimed at developing countries only - again another old wives tale."

Well, I have to admit from my very limited research I got the impression that the WHO advice is largely based on research carried out in developing countries. So whilst its not aimed at developing countries, I couldn't find any significant evidence to suggest that weaning my child at 5 months would harm him in anyway, given that (a) I live in a developed country (b) he was bottle fed not breast fed (c) I feed him in organic food only.

There's a few posts on here discrediting 'experts' but I'd like to see some of the evidence as to why we shouldn't wean till 6 months but I haven't found any.

Flip

1 2