Starting on solids

[waiting4bambino]

I know all the books say that you should start solids at 4 months, but is there any risk in starting them earlier, say at 12 weeks? My baby seems hungrier than usual and i was wondering whether to introduce a rusk into her last bottle? Has anyone else done this? Also, could i be at risk of making her overweight if i do this?

thanks VS

have never really talked about it - if only i knew then what i knew now

My DD is 20 wks old and i've been giving her in total about 1tsp of baby rice a day.
Slightly runny, not gooey.
If she doesnt want it i don't force it.
She has been having it for just under 1 month now. She's fine. still has loads of milk whenever she wants it.
I'm b/f her.
She leads the way for me.
yes, blw may not be the way to go for some of you.some say feed baby every 3-4 hrs, she wants milk every 2-3 hrs. sometimes she goes 4 hrs.

a salutory lesson really

yes babies get really hungry and cry..but milk is all they need

(((((((((ruby)))))))))))

thanks for sharing, i thikn it demonstrates teh point quite well that babies are not designed to take food.

but why are you giving it to her imawurzel!! one spoon in terms of volumes and calories is meaningless

and there is a difference between BLW and ignoring the guidelines

i just don;t get the hurry

FWIW, When DD was weaned she was 26weeks, but her adjusted age would have only been 18weeks, I thought I was doing well by going the extra two weeks (adjusted) over what the HV told me.

DS1 was 26 weeks exactly, DS2, he might be 30 weeks by the time I get over third child neglect

Imawurzel, you said

If she doesnt want it i don't force it.

Firstly, how can you tell if she wants it or not? My 6 week old was looking rather intently at my quavers yesterday, he doesn't want them though, and even if he did, the harm they can do is much worse than making him wait!

unfortunately it does lulu

sorry to hear that ruby.

why not LM?.
oh, guidelines.
Toady she had a small amount of mashed carrot in with her rice.
When DD last got weighed 18/3 she was 10.15 and when she got weighed on 6/5 she was 13.2.
She is just under the 25th percentile. Due to get weighed agin next tues. HV (i don hard hat here)said she would have probably been a lot less than that if i wasn't giving her that 1 tsp.
If she has problems in 30 years then i'll come on and tell you all
"you were right, i was wrong"

there is no benefit at all to a baby to take solids early.

none at all

there is a quite real potential for harm

ignore the guidelines if you must but at least make an informed decision to do so

have a look at www.kellymom.com there are some good tips about readiness and non readiness for weaning, and feeding more frequently is not a reason to give food

yes, well researched, peer reviewed guidelines

if your baby can sit unaided, hold her head, hold a spoon or piece of food and get it to her mouth and has lost the tongue thrust reflex, then she is probably physically ready for solid food

i don;t understand why you are giving food, and i am not being argumentative

so she is petite, some babies have to be on the 25th percentile.. if she is in proportion to her length, then so much the better

milk will fill her and nourish her more due to the simple fact she can take more of it than food

so your HV thinks 1 teaspoon of baby rice has made all the difference

i am staggered

and what if in 30 years, your child has bowel issues or intolerances? god forbid

i am genuinely puzzled and would like to know why people sneer at the guidelines for introducing solid foods when there is a real danger of harm to a a child.

i don;t think that is an unreasonable question

you say guidelines like somoene made them up on a whim!

I do find it extraordinary that some mothers are arrogant enough to think they know better than the medics and scientists that have proved why waiting to wean at 6 months is the only safe option.

Perhaps it's to try and fulfil their own selfish needs....

I do not think i know better than medics, i never went to uni or such to become knowledgable in this area.
nor do i have selfish needs.
I just felt my DD was ready to try some puree.
T'is all.
This is the first thread that i have become involved in at such a length.
i take all your comments on board.

Imawurzel, 'felt' how?

You 'felt' her gut had matured enough to take solids?

You 'felt' that the risk of her not being ready was small enough to take?

Or 'felt' that even though she was most definitely not physically ready at 16weeks that the risk didn't matter?

Or 'felt' that she was going to be one of the lucky babies who is eady at 17weeks so feeding a week early wouldn't matte?

Or 'felt' that all the science behind the guidelines was tosh?

'Felt' what exactly???

[Peeks in]

If I might also add my tuppence worth here

Skepticism on:
Do you recall the experts telling everyone the baby should sleep on their front? then it was on the back? then the side? now who knows what they think. But somehow for thousands of years humans survived without these experts, somehow those old people had worked it out and passed it on.
Skepticism off:

On eating, I did let my 3 month old taste some solids, then some pureed stuff or was it bottled desserts? I can't recall. But you know it was parental instinct. He seemed ready and wanting it. He never had reflex action, was physically quite solid It was slow and steady and he was observed and checked carefully

He wanted it, and liked it, though milk was still his main nourishment.

I totally disagree that just because some current scientists and experts have shifted the timescales again, doesn't make them 100% right.

I say to people, you read and then you decide.

[runs away now]

You mean the experts that decide babies should sleep on their backs and cut vases of FSIDS hugely?
Those experts?

What I don't understand is when it is proven that not feeding until 6 months does no harm but feeding before then can harm, why the fuck the rest of it matters?

It's a risk, that you don't need to take, so WHY TAKE IT?

It's not even your own flipping health you're playing 'guess when' with, it's a tiny, innocent baby that you spent nine months making, why not spend 6 months waiting to feed it ffs.

Yeah I mean those experts that increased it by saying sleep on the front in the 80's.

It wasn't shown, scientifically, until the mid-eighties that sleeping on the front could increase FSIDS, when they discovered this they started to change advice.
As with weaning, it took HCP's goodness knows how long to catch up, like now, HCP's still advocate weaning from 3 months.

There was nothing to suggest that sleeping on the front would harm babies, and as soon as there was advice was changed.

However, wrt weaning, there is already scientific research showing that weaning at 4 months will harm the baby if it's stomach is not mature enough, so it doesn't really fit with what you're saying.

Different scenarios, with different evidence, unless of course you wish to equate the evidence found in both cases being the turning point, which would leave baby sleeping on back advice on a par with weaning after 6 months, to stop the problems caused by weaning at 4 months/sleeping on the front.

A good analogy (although it is against your argument so I doubt what you meant to express)

My DD is asleep on her front right now.
She sleeps better and longer like this.
if i try and put her on her back in her moses basket when she's asleep she wakes and cries but as soon as she's calmed down and turned over she falls straight asleep.
yes i worry about it, but if she sleeps better, so be it.
i do not EVER let my MIL near her or hold her for ages after she has had a ciggie. she will not give up.
I know risks like that. and i do not take them.
now your gonna shout at me about feeding being a isk like that.

I meant 4 months, not 3 in the first paragraph.

The fact that you put your baby to sleep on her front at such a young age, ignoring the risks of SIDS means, no I shan't shout at you, I just don't see the point in conversing with you any longer.
If you'll happily risk death, why should I imagine you'll take a moment to think about stomach problems later in life.

lol VS: I just popped in, couldn't resist. Not here to convince anyone this way or that. They originally said on the front, cos children would choke on vomit. Of course they never checked if there were other bad side effects.

Imawurzel: (finally realised your name meant) Just came in to give you some relief, you are not the odd one out. But you will be, as I am running out of here. Too hot for me

so i'm supposed to listen to her cry like mad when i put her in her basket??
I was put on my tummy and fed at 3 months or so when i was a baby and there's nothing wrong with me.
and NO, i do not happily risk death of my child. I do anything i can and do to make her happy, which she is. a very happy contented bundle. midwives have said, HV's have said,and doc's have said so.

No, you're not meant to listen to her cry, you're meant to give her more milk!!
It's what babies need

As for 'I was X and I'm alright' please, if you're going to use that line it's bad enough using it with weaning, but check out the figures on cot death before and after the back to sleep campaign started in 1995.

As for 'I was X and I'm alright' please, if you're going to use that line it's bad enough using it with weaning, but check out the figures on cot death before and after the back to sleep campaign started in 1991.