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

Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

BLW before 6 months?

77 replies

MoonUnitAlpha · 27/12/2010 20:36

My ds is 21 weeks old (was born a week late if that makes any difference!) - I'm keen to do BLW. I haven't felt any pressure to wean before now as he hasn't seemed ready at all, hasn't been feeding more frequently, and has gone from feeding once in the night to twice but it's not too terrible.

In the last couple of weeks though he has become much more co-ordinated at grabbing things and getting them into his mouth, and has started to sit with very little support - he can sit by himself but can only sustain it for about 30 seconds. He's also very interested and vocal when we're eating.

Is it possible to do BLW this early? I'll probably try to leave it for another week or two, but is there anything I should know/do differently as he's younger? I'm tempted to sit him in a bumbo chair with a tray and just put some food in front of him and see how he does, but not sure if this is the best way to go about it.

OP posts:

EdgarAleNPie · 06/01/2011 22:36

that link also sees harm in waiting longer than 6 months in some cases.

basically it calls for an approach based on the individual baby, not an absolute 6 months minimum.

sassy34264 · 08/01/2011 18:08

I've read into this extensively, and the -allergies if you wean early mantra - is supported by studies that class early as before 17 weeks. People have just taken early to mean before 6 months because the WHO recommends breast feeding for 6 months. There is no evidence (that i could find anyway) that allergies increase if you feed between 4-6months. Also, I also found evidence that not weaning at 6 months, ie, 7 months and onwards increases the risk of Coeliac disease. The reason the WHO recommend exclusive breast feeding until 6 months is because it shows a decrease in the risk of intestional viruses. I'm presuming for those that ff, there is therefore no need to adhere to the 6 month rule.
Also a friend who is undertaking a EAT study to look at the effects of different times f weaning has said that Australia have changed their guidelines and reverted back to 4 months because of the risk of Coelic

nappyaddict · 08/01/2011 19:42

What are intestional viruses?

sassy34264 · 08/01/2011 21:35

Sorry the report actually says 'gastrointestional infections' but my twins were screaming to be breast fed and i had to type quick! It just means infections in the intestines.

Here is the link for the WHO report. And some others with regards to findings that feeding after 17 weeks is ok.

weaning

WHO

gaelicsheep · 08/01/2011 21:54

I was in the same position a few weeks ago, and from about this age I was happy for DD to have a go with any foods where the allergy risk is low - the usual early weaning stuff basically. I don't think it can do any harm when the baby is showing the signs of readiness.

I started weaning proper at 25 weeks but I would maintain that my DD was ready a good couple of weeks beforehand.

The guidelines say most babies exhibit these signs at around 6 months - ie some will be earlier, some later. Baby led weaning is just that. The baby shows you when they are ready - you just provide the opportunity for them to try.

nappyaddict · 08/01/2011 22:17

Why would ff babies not get gastrointestional infections?

sassy34264 · 08/01/2011 22:18

I've just started to wean my twins (3rd day today) and they are 22 weeks. When I had my DD 10 years ago, the advice was 4 months.

sassy34264 · 08/01/2011 22:21

They would nappyaddict more than breast fed babies, that's what WHO is sying.....'they are at less risk of these infections, if they are exclusively breast fed until they are 6 months old.' (no formula or food in other words)

jandmmum · 09/01/2011 02:03

ok so now I'm confused. DD is 22 weeks and was going to wait till 26 weeks as I was under the impression that this was the ideal. However, she is doing most of the things in that statement, knawing fists, chewing toys etc and has been doing for a few weeks. We currently have her sitting in her high chair with toys to play with at our meal times which she loves. So should I start giving her the oportunity by putting food on her tray or should I wait a few weeks? Most of the document is geared towards the traditional purée method. I'm a little concerned about the growth faltering / micronutrient deficiency as DD has dropped from just above 9th centile to just below 2nd. This statement also goes against the stuff on kellymum which suggests there are benefits to delaying weaning. Oh how I wish just some advice would be consistent!

sassy34264 · 09/01/2011 13:16

It's only seen as ideal if you are exclusively breast feeding, but it is an individual decision still. Are you bf or ff?
I've given my babies a cuple of spoonfuls of baby rice, but i'm still breast feeding as well. My decision was based on the fact that thay were both crying with hunger after being breast fed. I persevered through the 4month growth spurt for a while, but one day when they were crying non stop, i cracked and bought formula to top them up. Unfortunately they are really bad at sucking on a bottle and barely get any, unless i squeeze it in their mouths....not ideal. So at 22 weeks i made the decision after reading up about allergies etc that it was perfectly ok to wean at this age.

InspirationalBreadbin · 09/01/2011 13:44

I agree with you Sassy. From what I have read I am unconvinced that there is any benefit weaning at 26 weeks compared to say 22 weeks. Am planning on starting weaning my baby in a couple of weeks, he is 20 weeks now. He is FF.

sassy34264 · 09/01/2011 13:56

Some people will argue that it is easier at 26 weeks cos you can skip the puree bit and give them finger foods. Again, it's an individual decision. I have twins, so my life's bloody difficult anyway!!!

nappyaddict · 09/01/2011 15:42

sassy So why would the ff babies need food quicker if they are more at risk of infections?

Original poster

MoonUnitAlpha · 09/01/2011 15:44

I don't think it's that ff babies need food quicker, it's that weaning earlier doesn't present an additional risk of infection whereas for exclusively breastfed babies introducing anything other than breastmilk increases their risk of infection.

OP posts:

nappyaddict · 09/01/2011 15:52

Ah I see.

nappyaddict · 09/01/2011 15:54

So where would mixed fed babies come into it? Should it be 6 months because additional food would decrease the amount of breast milk taken or 4 months because they are already having formula so there is more of a risk of infections anyway?

Original poster

MoonUnitAlpha · 09/01/2011 16:06

I would think that once anything other than breastmilk has been introduced then weaning before 6 months isn't so much of an issue.

OP posts:

sassy34264 · 09/01/2011 16:20

Nappy they don't need food quicker, it's just that breast fed babies are given extra protection against allergies and infections, whereas ff do not have that extra protection, (they are more likely to get it than breast fed) so introducing food doesn't decrease their already increased risk. (hope this makes sense)

jandmmum · 09/01/2011 16:23

my lo is mostly bf but does have the odd few oz of formula at the late feed if I haven't managed to express enough so that I can go to bed earlier. As she has so little we use the ready made stuff so infection risk is lower. I guess if you were properly mix feeding you would be able to drop some of the ff as baby takes more food rather than the bfs. Will probably start putting a few bits on her tray. If she's not ready she won't eat it will she?

sassy34264 · 09/01/2011 16:24

nappy I would say mixed fed babies could be weaned at 4 or 6 months......it's a personal choice, but if you want the added protection that breast milk gives because of the anti bodies in it, then i would keep breast feeding with weaning. (they advice this in the WHO report) I'm planning on doing it for as long as i can up to 1 year old. (they recommend 2, but i'm just not that selfless!)

sassy34264 · 09/01/2011 16:47

Jandmum I would imagine if she's not interested she would just play with it. My ds took the spoon off me today and tried getting it in his mouth himself. (he does succeed, but sometimes it's via his nose or eyes!) He cries between mouthfuls, if i'm not quick enough with the spoonfuls. DD isn't as bothered. She'll open her mouth for the food, but she pulls a yuk face while she eats it!

gaelicsheep · 09/01/2011 20:31

This was my reasoning with DS who was mixed fed. My breastmilk finally ran out at 4.5 months at which point I happily started him on solids rather than continue increasing his formula intake.

nappyaddict · 10/01/2011 13:56

sassy So does formula have the same risk or less of a risk than solid food with regards to getting those gastro infections?

gaelicsheep · 10/01/2011 22:37

NappyAddict - from what I've recently been told about iron from formula sitting in the gut and fuelling bacteria, I'd say there was more risk personally.

jandmmum · 11/01/2011 18:32

ok so we were having roast dinner tonight gave dd some veg to see what she would do and she fair demolished the broccoli and roast parsnip. gummed the carrot too but think it was a bit too rubbery for her. can see this is going to be fun!

Flip

1 2 3 4

Swipe left for the next trending thread