Weaning at 20 weeks

[CJMommy]

Just some reassurance needed really. DD is 20 weeks and I have given her some 'baby fruity porridge' type stuff this morning. I had every intention of waiting as close to 26 weeks as possible-DS was BLW at 25 weeks and is a fantastic eater at 3 years old.

However, over the last week she has been practically throwing herself at our dinner plates, opening her mouth and reaching for food- she gets excited when she sees food and strains her neck to get at it. Her tongue thrust has gone, she sits well albeit supported and thoroughly enjoyed chewing a broccoli stalk and carrot at dinner last night.

So with all this in mind, have I done the right thing? There is no history of allergies in the family but just concerned that I could be harming her?
I guess I'm being a little over anxious but this is such a high debated topic!

So, if I am to continue, is there anything I need to be mindful of? I know about gluten/ wheat/ honey etc but last time I weaned DS, I just sort of chucked all the food we were eating at him.

Sorry for rambling!

RM forgot to add that you speak alot of common sense in your last post

I started BLW at 21 weeks. I wouldn't spoonfeed before 26 weeks - I'd just give her some food and let her explore. If she eats it, great, if not, she's still having fun and not getting distressed trying to reach your food!

My DD decided to it was time to wean at around 21 weeks. I see that as being baby led. She would grab and scream for our food, and could sit (in a high chair), pick food up and eat it. The rules say around 6 months when showing signs of readiness. As it happens we are not really doing BLW a lot of the time as when she is really hungry or really enjoying something she gets frustrated that she can't eat it quick enough- the piglet!

However the last 2 days she has not been up for being spoon fed so she has been attempting to feed herself again.

I found from around 18 weeks she was being sick a lot, I guess this was due to the sheer volume of milk she was consuming- this has stopped now she has solids.

I think I agree with Bertie - I wouldn't spoon feed, especially since they're likely to consume more food from a spoon and you don't want it to replace milk. There's no rush really, just let her play with some suitable bits at mealtimes.

Seeker, I said goalposts change all the time, not guidelines. Are you a health professional, btw? If not, get your head out of your arse and stop being so bloody patronising. It doesn't impress anyone.

Yes I agree with ready on the outside = ready on the inside. The reason I felt able to start so early was DS grabbed my banana and chewed on it yesterday, after a few weeks of attempting to get my food. He can sit ip well with minimal support too and has minor reflux issues so solids should help him. But yes, agree finger foods are best, not to try to shove stuff down him.

My ds is 20wks and has been really interested in food for a while, tries to grab my food and plate and gets very excited when he sees food, I have given him a couple of things, carrot stick, sweet potatoe stick, bit of banana, grains of rice, but I think its mainly curiosity, he'll pick it up and put it in his mouth, but it generally comes out again! So I think I'll just keep offering him appropriate things every couple of days until he starts to eat properly.
I have just changed him to hungry baby milk (he was breast fed at first but then I became ill and couldn't cope with feeding him while so ill) as he went from 5 bottles and waking once a night to 9 bottles waking 3 times, so he's settled back down on his hungry baby milk now, so I know he isn't too hungry!
I'm a great believer in following your baby and seeing when they are ready, when he is feeding himself I'll probably do combination feeding and give him some puree too.

I am very interested in some of the posts here that spoon feeding should not be done and that peopelare giving their babies birs of rice,banana etc.

When I last weaned - 6 yrs ago we started with baby rice and moved on to purees etc. Is this not the done thing anymore?

its very topical for me as I have a 5.5 month old dd who I am planning to wean in 2 weeks time and was planning to do same pattern as previously

I spoon feed and weaned my LO like you did your 6 year old Lisa. It's the done thing for us!

lisalisa - I don't think there's anything wrong with spoon feeding, just that if you wean early it's harder to tell with spoon feeding whether the baby is really ready or not. If a baby picks up a piece of food, puts it in their mouth, chews and swallows that's pretty clear - there's no wondering if it's too early.

Also if you let them feed themselves a lot of it is just playing/exploring, so they aren't cutting down on milk so quickly.

Though I didn't bother with baby rice and purees - if ds could eat banana and stick of veg on his own then there seemed no reason to. From 22 weeks I gave him suitable finger food, and from about 25/26 weeks I spooned things like porridge, yoghurt, mashed meals etc too.

"Seeker, I said goalposts change all the time, not guidelines. Are you a health professional, btw? If not, get your head out of your arse and stop being so bloody patronising. It doesn't impress anyone."

WHy do people get so angry on this subject?

The fact are that a baby's gut becomes ready to deal with solid food at some stage before the age of 6 months. By the age of 6 months they are all ready. The problem is that you can;t tell whether your baby is one of the VERY few who will develop allergies, intolerances and bowel disorders if weaned before 6 months. SHowing interest in food and all the other indicators do not also show that the gut is ready for food. And, as there are no advantages at all to giving anything but milk before 6 months, it seems bonkers to me to take the risk, however small of not waiting another couple of weeks.

I wasn't angry, just a little irked that you were so sarcastic and unpleasant in your reply. Fact is, I did know when my children were ready and I successfully weaned them with NO allergies or intolerances.

Actually, I can't be arsed with people like you who are so rigid. Sleep well.

Seeker, there are no health advantages, but there are certainly advantages - have you never had to choose between giving the baby a chunk of banana, or having to hide to eat?

lisa, you can do either way - it's just that if you're starting at around 6 months and there's no urgency to get food into them (as was previously thought) then you might as well let them handle the food themselves and explore it at their own rate. And then following on from this came theories that perhaps babies' development in terms of being able to physically get food to their mouth, chew and swallow it, is perhaps related to the development of their gut and that this is in fact a preferable way to do things.

But if you're waiting until 6 months then the evidence doesn't show any difference at all, so just do it whichever way is easiest for you :)

Haha - well put Chunky :) Especially hard if your baby cries as soon as you are out of sight and you don't like leaving them crying.

"I wasn't angry, just a little irked that you were so sarcastic and unpleasant in your reply. Fact is, I did know when my children were ready and I successfully weaned them with NO allergies or intolerances.

Actually, I can't be arsed with people like you who are so rigid. Sleep well."

Sarcastic? Unpleasant? Where? Oh, and you must use very interesting language when you're angry if you talk to peopel the way you ddressed me when you only "a little irked"!

Why is it rigid to think that if there are guidelines issued byt eh WHO then it's a good idea to stick to them?

Guidelines are there for guidance. they are not absolute laws.
I took advice from healthcare professionals when making my decision and am really happy with the decision I and my DH made. It would seem DS was too given by the enthusiasm with which he gobbled down pears and baby rice. so I'm not going to get guilty about using spoons. DS wasn't interested in finger food til about 8 months!

Guidelines are there for guidance but they are based on evidence and research not just someone getting up in the morning and thinking 'oh I know lets change the weaning age to 6 months just to annoy people and make them wait to feed their DC'

And for all the "well I fed my DC at 19,20,21 weeks" brigade and they aren't showing any intolerances/allergies my mother is both gluten and lactose intolerant she didn't start to show symptoms until she was 50 - no-one knows why she has these intolerances all she knows is they are a bloody nuisance the fact YOUR children don't have intolerances right now doesn't mean they won't and doesn't mean other children won't if they are weaned early.

Also the OP asked if she had done the right thing so I think there is nothing wrong with coming on and saying well actually the guidelines say xyz (FOR A REASON) so no I don't understand why you couldn't wait another 4-6 weeks.

TgeTTys advice has been 6 months for about 5 years now, my eldest two (9&6) were weaned a 4 months and no harm has ever come to them. However I was planning on waiting until 6 months-ish but actually started a few days ago becausehe displayed all the signs your DC did OP. Really don't think it will do any harm whatsoever.

I think one of the things that confuses me is one party says they are ready if they can sit up, handle food- ready on the outside being ready on the inside etc. However , others will say, you must wait until 6 months. So, without wanting to prolong the debate, which guideline is the one the should be followed? I understand that these skills are attained at around 6 months but what about the kids who do it before then? Isn't 6 months a 'guideline' as it recognises the individuality of each child?

I think it's worth reading the WHO research, and also the British Dietetic Association weaning position paper and coming to your own conclusion. FWIW I think the evidence for not weaning from 4-6 months isn't as clear cut as not weaning before 4 months.

One of the most positive things about the guidelines being 6 months now (since 2003 apparently) rather than 4-6 months as it was in the 90s, or 4 months from the late 70s, is that now when we talk about early weaning it's 19, 20, 21 weeks. Before that a lot of children were weaned early at 8, 10, 12 weeks. So that's a big improvement in itself.

It's not as clear cut - but, as there is absolutely no advantage for weaning before 6 months and a very slight risk of harm, then why risk it? That's what baffles me. People are so very risk averse in every other aspect of childrearing.

Thanks for advice everyone