wrong to start weaning at 16 weeks?

[RB1]

DS having one teaspoon of baby rice with EBM once a day. No change to poo or behaviour. HV said to wait until 6 mths but DS was waking up numerous times at night starving. Have i made a mistake? What are the disadvantages to starting this early?

tis the famous 16wk growth spurt

a teaspoon of rice will make no difference to sleep (as you have found)

if he's hungry he needs more milk

good on your HV for giving out the correct advice

thanks for the reassurance Mrs Badger , will keep offering him milk and he has put onn some weight reacently so a growth spurt would make sense

Current guidelines say 6 months.

A hungry baby needs more calories. There are more calories in milk that baby rice. Just feed him more milk. That's what he needs.

when i have my own childre i will not hesititae to let them baby rice from 16 weeks (if i think they need / want it)

fruit / vegetables form a week after when ever they get their 1st baby rice...

wont be doing protein / dairy til they hit the magic 6 months though

Baby rice is pointless.
It contains eff all calories compared to milk or formula and if it shuts them up at night,it is becasue it sits in their poor little virgin stomachs like wallppaer glue.

the downside is to do with preventing digestive problems/allergies.
the WHO and department of health guidelines recommend six months, so your HV is giving you the best possible advice.

but why, nannyL? Why?

A 16 week old baby is hardly goig to say"please mummy, I fancy some baby rice today!"

I just canot get my head round the 'well, the World Health Organization says this, but I know what's best for my baby and I instinctively know he needs baby rice at 16 weeks"

Even if people have doubts about the possible harmful effects of early weaning, there is categorically no benefit to it - at best it it neutral. So why do it? Why take the risk that the WHO might actually be right?

i mean if they show signs of needing it

because i know loads and loads of healthy happy children / adults who have had food from 16 weeks (some alot earlier and all are fine)

also a nanny friends Dr boss (who has a baby) very recently read all the articles herself that she could find.... not the reports and suggestions of other people but the bare studies, and as a dr she concluded that there was no reason not to wean a baby at 16 weeks if they showed signs of being ready (and many are ready around that time)...

so that is goos enough for me

not many years ago at all you could buy baby food, and yogurts etc all from 4 months.. and lots of that had chicken / fish / dairy etc in

personally im happy with baby rice / fruit / veg puree, but have decided that my own children wont get dairy / protein until 6 months... and im quite sure, along with the other happy healthy allergy free children i have weaned from 4 months (along with all the current advice) they will be fine )

Er.. what signs of 'needing it' would those be then?

in terms of volume, milk is far more filling, calorific and nutritious than food

why the rush?

babies have small stomachs that need filling often, with milk. and only milk

there are no benefits to early weaning. there might be harm

www.kellymom.com has great info about weaning especially the myhts about signs of weaning

nannyL - my dh and his sister had baby rice in their bottles from about 14 weeks.
they were weaned early
they both have eczema - my SILs was quite severe. on her face, and made her very miserable.
they both have problems with their digestion, and are both prone to obesity and food intolerances.
therefore early weaning causes these problems?
purely unscientific and anecdotal
just like your statements.

and... i didnt have anything other then breast milk until i was 8 months and suffered really badly with eczma and asthma as a child... grew out of it all luckily

it is in significant and means nothing

i thinky uo will find most current 10 year olds were eating at 4 months

but if you can wait until 6 months or so, then you know that there is far less chance of problems in teh future

if a baby needs 40 weeks in utero to develop enough for birth and to be able to live outside the womb, why, a mere 16 weeks later, would they need food.....

I think you'll find most 80 year old shat in a pot under their beds throughout their youth.

Doesn't make it right.

your statement that you know loads of children etc etc is insignificant and means nothing, and yet you want to rely on it?
yes, most ten year olds will have been eating at four months.
lots of ten year olds have asthma and allergies, many many many more than when I was growing up.
in my (small) village school there are about twenty children on "allergy watch" - some have epipens - compared to erm ZERO when I was growing up.
all totally insignificant and irrelevant, of course.

things change, research comes to light, just becasue it was ever thus, or different in the old days, does not mean that current guidelines are meaningless

rice in teh bottle

brandy on the gums

honey on a dummy

babies sleeping on their fronts

babies fed every 4 hours on the breast for 10 minutes only

all things that were ok a generation or two ago, but would not be countenanced now

I liquidized a happy meal for my son today, he ate it no problem and he's only seven weeks, its nice to treat them.