Is early weaning really that bad?

[Underachieving]

I read the leaflets the health visitor hands out about DO NOT wean before 26 weeks, and if you really can't follow that, never ever ween before 17 weeks. The leaflets tell me my child will get allergies, is not developed enough to do it and so on. Ok thinks I, information on board.

Anyway, baby led weaning looks ace, I quite fancied giving it a go. Such things weren't heard of when my first child (11 year old) was little, you weaned at 3-4 months, with a spoon.

My baby is 20 weeks.

I was talking to someone the other day who said they were giving baby rusks at 11 weeks, having taken in the advice from the HV I quietly recoilled in horror. I told this horror story to a friend, with a 7 year old boy. Friend said "I was giving [the 7 year old] rusks from 9 weeks." She then proceeded to give me the "you know your own baby" speach. I said nothing, not worth losing a friend over, this boy is 7 now. I was horrified though.

And rusks of all things? Aren't they nearly all white sugar and allergy-inducing wheat? Or did I get that wrong?

Also, most of the time early weaners say thier babies were feeding a lot, refluxy or fussing and mouthing when thier parents were eating. Er, yes, I have one like that too. So the early weaners are telling me I ought to be feeding her solids now.

I don't know what to think. The department of health and my health visitor want me to see early weaning as a terrible sin but there are a significant number of real world mothers who wean very very early and they say different.

What do you think?

i think that it wouold be unwise to take anecdotal "evidence" over that of a health department with actual studies and research backing up its findings

and while I am not saying your friends' children WILL end up with some awful thing happening to them, they also cannot possibly say that early weaning has had no effect

some of the things like increased chance of diabetes, obesity in later life etc etc they just wouldn't be able to tell right now would they?

The way I see it is that there may be risks to your child if you wean early. But there are no risks to weaning later.... so why chance it?

to add, with regard to anecdotal evidence.. it's a bit like a 75 year old smoker coming up and saying "it's all nonsense, I smoked since I was 15 and I'm fine! cancer schmancer"

just because a few people do it with no ill effects does NOT mean there is no risk

increased risk doesn't mean you'll definately get it - those children might be absolutely fine. Still doesn't mean its a good idea.

Also why do something with no need and no benefit.

Sample size of one, two or even three does not provide useful evidence.

Hi, I'm new here but was recently reading an article about this so thought I'd contribute! It's really not so clear-cut as HVs and general advice would have you believe - what causes allergies is not clear at all yet, and many countries offer different advice to that given in Britain. Here's a link to the article I read in the Telegraph:

Since I'm not sure I put the link in properly here's a relevant quote: (sorry it's a bit long)
"Since the WHO advice was issued other studies have suggested that exclusive breastfeeding for six months is associated with iron deficiency which is linked to mental, co-ordination and social development problems. Babies are not routinely screened for iron deficiency which is a 'further concern', the authors said.
Babies not exposed to other tastes, specifically the bitter taste of green leafy vegetables, at an early age may reject these foods later leading to dietary deficiencies, they said.
Also there are concerns that not introducing solid foods before six months may increase the likelihood of allergies.
And a study in Sweden found increased risk of coeliac disease with delayed introduction of gluten suggesting that the best time to introduce gluten containing foods such as wheat flour was between three and six months."
Having said that I didn't wean my baby until 6 months but that was because she seemed completely content and was sleeping through on milk alone, and in the face of so much conflicting evidence I just thought I'd do what seemed right for us.

Did you travel in a car seat when you were a baby / child? I didn't and am fine. So why bother with child car seats?

Same thing.

The OP is talking about early weaning - 9 weeks and 11 weeks. The BMJ review of evidence to which you're alluding talks about 4 months - 6 months where there is some ambiguity and conflicting evidence.

My "pfb" is 15 - and even then, the WHO advice was to leave weaning as long as possible - preferably to 6 months.

The replies on the whole are confirming what I was thinking- evidence vs anecdote. Put it down to a temporary loss of confidence that I raised the question. But I'm relieved to get the impression I'm not the only person taking the official advice seriously.

I'm interested in the Telegraph article someone linked, but these people I mention aren't coming from a position of having read something and thought "hmm, I se things from another angle now", they mostly seem to have come from the position of (dare I say this)... Laziness in not wanting to have to offer so many milk feeds.

I'm not saying everyone who weans early is lazy, far from it, so please don't think I am. Just that the major motivation of the two people I referenced does seem to have been that they thought it'd mean less work for them. They were both saying "he was drinking 9oz and then wanting another 9 an hour later" as if that was some massive problem the world had to stop for, or "he wasn't sleeping through the night" like babies should be exected to.

They're meant to drink when they're hungry surely? It's the fuel they run on and they grow at lightspeed. And as for sleeping through the night, when was that something standard for babies? Surely everyone knows babies means disturbed sleep and to get a straight-through sleeper is a bonus?

Gah I don't know. It's good not to be the only one though.

There were quite a few threads on that BMJ study when it was published.

It wasn't a new study, it was a (non-systematic) review of existing evidence.

Re iron deficiency - there are some arguments that routine iron testing would be beneficial (it is done in the US). However to my mind, an anaemic baby can be given iron supplements, you don't need to wean early. Iron stores from birth last until around 6 months so this is definitely not an argument for weaning at 9 weeks. Premature babies, and babies whose mothers were anaemic during pregnancy are more at risk. Supplementing a baby who is not anaemic is also dangerous, so if your baby shows signs of anaemia then ask GP to do a blood test to confirm. Breastmilk DOES contain iron, and it is much much more easily absorbed than iron found in formula or iron-fortified cereals.

Re bitter tastes not being accepted unless introduced before 6 months - I don't think there are any studies to back this up, seems to be idle wondering on the part of the authors.

Re allergies and coeliac disease:

"The development of immune tolerance to an antigen may require repeated exposure, perhaps during a critical early window, and perhaps modulated by other dietary factors including breast feeding."

They don't sound very certain, do they? There is research going on at the moment (EAT study), the results of which will be interesting. The British Coeliac Society advise introducing gluten after six months, and say:

"A recent population-based study by Welander et al. (2010) from Sweden in which data on gluten introduction, breastfeeding duration and episodes of infectious disease were collected prospectively showed that age at introduction of gluten and the end of breastfeeding were not associated with future coeliac disease. "

Sorry for megapost, but the way this BMJ article was reported in the press was very misleading and led to a lot of people needlessly feeling immense guilt for the way they had weaned their babies - just wanted to give the other side and reinforce that while more research is needed, the recommendations over weaning have not changed.

I weaned early having read around the subject a lot on the internet. I tend to waiver more on the side of agreeing with the 4 months onwards - your decision. I had a very fussy drinker who basically still hates milk and it eased a lot of our issues. I was very careful about what I was giving her and in no way regret my decision. it was right for us.
I would never give rusks early - gluten/sugar etc. I think the choice of what you are feeding them is very, very important. Anedotally my MIL gave both DH and BIL rusks from six weeks - both have IBS.
It is your decision to make, noone should feel guilty if they have informed themselves and come to a decision that is right for them. This decision should never involve sleeping and routines which is the older generation's reason for weaning early it always seems.

RJandA put it much better than me

There is quite a lot of evidence that weaning before 4 months is harmful, evidence for weaning between 4-6 months isn't as clear cut.

People who wean at 6/9/11 weeks must be pretty thick though.