Itsnothing to do with me but DB and SIL have 13wk old on mashed banana and petit filous!

[Yorky]

He is a big baby, 91st percentile so DB told me on phone last night. She has always had problems feeding but persevered and they seem to do well with mixed feeding, but when DB said that nephew enjoys his mashed banana and petit filous at 13wks I was
he is their first, but my first, now 21months, was exclusively BF till 6months as per advice.
I know there's nothing I can do, but can it be good for him?
Just ranting really

When my ds was born the advice was to wean at 12 weeks ,he is 11 now and so far not looking like a hoodie and is G&T in science .

He hates banana though .

If they're happy and he's happy I'd leave well alone.

My DD was bottle-fed (persevered with bf for 2 weeks but she really objected to latching on!), and very colicky in spite of all the so-called remedies, also would never take a full bottle feed.

Started weaning with baby rice at 14 weeks, then onto a limited amount of pureed veg a couple of weeks later.

She was considerably happier, and has been healthier than virtually all of my friends kids who were exclusively breastfed and weaned at 6 months+.

Not saying my way is right BTW, just that it is up to the parents, and how well it works depends on them and the individual child. I doubt it's doing him any serious harm, but it will probably harm your relationship with them if you take it upon yourself to call them on it.

my dd is 16, ds is 9....they're fine hanaflower.

i was weaned at 6 weeks... (so were my 2 sisters) no allergies at all.

May I please point out that the official advice does not 'keep changing'.

It has been '6 months' since 2003. Before that it was '4-6 months' and had been for over 20 years!

This may not be what HVs were saying 5/10/15/20 years ago but it is what the official guidance was. HVs who give poor advice and plain wrong 'information' make me . They have no business touting their opinion as fact.

Hear Hear AnarchyAunt.

Anarchy A - Yes -pre-2003 FOUR-6 months. Almost nobody did 6 though - and if the official was four months, you can bet that by the time your baby was 3.3months lots were thinking about solids. So sounds like official advice HAS changed since 2003 when they say now definitely 6 months. Of course 6 weeks is too early, and 13 is too - but 13wks is nearer to the pre-2003 guideline, so I guess the point is that although it's not ideal, plenty of today's teens were 3-4 month old weaners - and are OK.

LOL, at the 'introducing solids when your baby has doubled their weight' concept...errmmm that would be around now for my chunky DS at 8 weeks old !!!

I'll be waiting for 6 months before giving DS food, as there are no benefits in introducing solids early so why take the risk.

OP, I would check that your DB and wife understand the possible risks in early solids, just in case they don't know this information.

Even more over the raw egg in bottle
And skips? maybe banana is a good option!
I think some babies are going to grow up to tummy problems no matter what you do, but the advice should help reduce the numbers who do

rice or rusk in a baby;s bottle is a choking hazard and can potentially damage their kidneys by overloading them . milk is a drink and food. it is all that babies need until their digestive system is mature enough to produce the right enzymes to digest food otehr than milk

Merrylegs - yes, thats what I said! Advice was '4-6 months' and in 2003 changed to '6 months'. It hadn't quite changed when DD was born and she was weaned at 23 weeks - my interpretation of 4-6 months being, some time in the middle, closer to 6 preferably.

Just because advice was ignored doesn't mean it wasn't there. It wasn't that big a change really.

What problems are caused by weaning before 26 weeks?

yorky, but can see you're in a difficult position here. I would perhaps make some comment about the 6mo guidleine on the yogurt pot, but not get drawn into an argument about it, if possible.

I can't believe the "mine are alright" attitude that prevails on weaning debates; it makes me very sad.

I was weaned onto rusk at about 10 weeks and was finally diagnosed, after a lifetime of bowel problems, as having coeliac disease when I was 35.

and thickening milk with things like rice and rusk and having to cut a bigger hole in the teat so the poor mites can get at it just smacks to me of neglect. Care ye not that your child might choke, on borken bits of teat if not the thicker mixture itself?

guidelines change for a reason as newer and better research is done. I would hate to think that I might have done some damage to DS by weaning him at 14 weeks (incidentally before I knew about my coeliac disease), on the advice of my HV, because he was a big hungry boy, and knowing what i do know I was morethan happy to wait with DD (22 weeks as she helped herself to my mash and was able to sit up) and she had no gluten before 9 months and will do the same with DC3 due in a few weeks.

Baby rice at 6 weeks, I am amazed at that, not in a good way either..........

well he thrived he was a wackin big baby tho- very healthy 15 year old now .....ds2 who wasnt weaned til past 6 months through his own choice, he simply didnt need anything else and ds3 who was 5 months when he strted on his puree ......so there you go ...still amazed??? i have to say mn is very judgeypants of late.

I'm amazed that the advice was given, not that you followed it, chapeloffearstick.

If medical professionals are handing out duff advice, it's a bit blinking worrying!

I was just discussing this with my dh .......and this is who told me it was ok (im not stupid btw im a qualified NNEB)

*a health visitor(retired)
*a family friend also a G.P
*a nurse
and my own G.P.......my ds1 was in scbu and was over a month overdue by the time he was 6 weeks he was over 16 1/bs and very sturdy!!

It did fill him up and by xmas he was eating xmas dinner (pureed obviously he wasnt gnawing on the turkey leg )

Whilst thats what worked for us then, I wouldnt say to anybody else to go ahead and do it but times change theres far much more advice/information/knowledge available nowadays.

my nan was weaned early (at days old) because she was premature and a twin. Her twin died. So they filled her up with mashed down starchy/bulky food products to help her gain weight. She lived to a ripe old age (87) but she suffered various skin and digestive conditions which hospitalised her many times before eventually dying of bowel cancer.

My mum was weaned early too. She wasnt b/fed for long. She has IBS and diverticular disease.

My mother in law was also weaned early because she was a 'weak' baby. She has IBS, prolapsed bowel, diverticular disease, allergies, asthma etc.

I've no idea if there is a connection.

Sorry but all these anecdotes don't really add up to any evidence at all - Please see this thread.

Back to the OP - I would say something now, gently and with love. If your nephew has any kind of digestive problem in the future you would always be thinking "if I had said something perhaps he wouldn't have a problem". I don't think I would like to live with that kind of regret, personally.

exactly, mrs j

I am finding this thread really depressing.

The number of people giving mothers outdated, non-evidence-based advice is alarming...chapeloffearchickstick, you are an NNEB, you know that official guidance is based on research (surely) and that merely trotting out your list of people-who-are-equally-badly-informed does not trump research.

What do you say to the parents of babies in your care? They might well ask you, as you are qualified. Do you tell them the guidance and then tell them not to bother about it?

I'm afraid my hackles rise when people come on mumsnet and tell us their qualifications as a way of supporting their own personal choices in parenting

i weaned my lo early 13 weeks and he was and still is a fantastic eater. he could never be filled with milk alone and i have to say that all the judging that goes on about when we wean etc just makes already guilt ridden mothers feel even worse.
when i weaned my lo it was on the instructions of my hv who actually said to me after i said i was worried about the 6 month policy that she had to by law inform me of that 'but here in the real world and for the past twenty years or so 'people have weaned and unless ther was a predisposed condition[ family history etc] ther would be no need to worry. and do you know what she was right my lo very healthy got a very good appetite and has a very broad range of tastes.

Fully agree with tiktok and lulumama. Tbh we all have our own opinions and make different parenting choices.

However imo if those choices/decisions are very different to current medical advice (based on research) then I personally wouldn't state those opinions on the internet, and certainly not in a way that seems designed to reassure other less experience mothers that "it will be fine, it was for me"

This doesn't just apply to weaning btw, if I had other opinions (for example if I thought it was fine to put my child to sleep on his stomach at birth) I would not be posting and reassuring others it is fine because I am a nurse.

whitebeaches - there is no 'law' compelling HVs to tell mothers of the guidance, but it is certainly recognised good practice.

Why are you 'guilt-ridden' if you were and are confident you were doing the right thing?

Your HV was wrong and gave you advice that would not have enabled you to ensure you were giving your child the best health outcomes (unless there was some over-riding medical issue present). My feeling is you should be annoyed at that - not annoyed at discussions where people report the evidence that she was wrong.