when is it ok to wean a bit early, at say 5 mo?

[titferbrains]

I have only one dd and waited till 24 weeks exactly before offering food.

I have friends who have all fretted about baby not getting enough, seeming hungry etc. and so they've weaned early. Why do doctors not make it clear that baby will be seem hungry because of GROWTH SPURT not because it needs food? I have told so many people that milk is the most nutrient dense and filling thing they can offer their baby and am still amazed that they go on to wean early.

Just want to go over the key points of when to begin weaning from what I remember from DD.

• Baby should be able to sit up unaided
• baby shd be 6 months old
• baby shd not push food out of mouth with tongue? I remember something about being ready and them being able to bring food to back of mouth without gagging? and the way the mouth develops to accommodate food?

Why do people continue to wean early saying that baby is not getting enough from milk when the amounts of "food" they eat contributes so comparatively little to their diet?

ds leaned forward and munched off a bite of the banana I was eating at 5 months!

He was 12lb 4oz at birth, remained in the highest centiles, and exclusively breastfed until then. I don't understand the assumption that if a baby is massive breastmilk isn't enough.

I weaned dd1/2 at 16 weeks as per the guidelines(2000-1) and HV advice. Weaned dd3 at 24 weeks (2011).

I'm not insulted by the suggestion that the previous guidelines weren't the best thing. As with sleep/car seats/ smoking etc we know so much more now and the monitoring on children in the past led to the changes to what we have now. I don't understand why people see it as a slight on them, because they followed current guidelines.

RitaMorgan: thanks for the clarification of your earlier post as "it is important never to wean before 17 weeks" did sound prescriptive, and in conflict with the official advice for my elder two DCs.

It's fascinating to see how things change over time - in 1995, for example 56% babies were onto solids by 3 months (in 2000, this was 24%). Also in 2000, 85% had introduced by 16 weeks, and "virtually all" babies by 26 weeks.

As subsequent posters have also agreed, it's not made that much difference; no damaged generations or whatever.

As per other early weaning thread - I weaned after reading the research report that the news headlines came from about 6 months ago - which was not funded by formula companies, the authors had previously been funded but no external funding was recived for this particular review. I also looked at the position statement from the Paediatric Group of the British Dietetic Association, as well as some of the research that informed their statement. I made an informed decision based on what was - and is - right for my child.

We have pre-weaning eczema, I'm still bf, and a family history of egg and fish allergy so we're seeing dietician before trying those. So far DS has had baby porridge, loads if fruit and veg, loves new tastes, no chance whatsoever in sleeping but then we didn't wean early because we wanted him to sleep / thought he was hungry / worried he wasn't getting enough food.

I wish women felt more confident in asking questions and making a choice following a range of opinions if they want to, and feel able to. The guidelines are great but just that - guidelines - I wonder how many people lose confidence in their own judgement becasue of the confusing and prescriptive nature of advice given / news headlines?

Sorry, meant to add - weaned at about 21 weeks.

meditrina - the advice now is never to wean before 17 weeks. But there's no point worrying now about weaning at 16 weeks.

Yes, I know.

I've never been worried.

It is possible to agree with the message, but object to the tone.

Sorry about my last - it was too snippy and to immediate a reaction to feeling patronised.

I'd rather let my views on this rest with the post at 16:25:48 - on a note of agreement, acknowledging other posters agree there is no "damaged generation" (even when weaning at 12 weeks was common, and 16 the norm). And hope that, in that consensus, the question in the title is answered - because it all makes very little difference.

InFlames you raise an interesting point about guidelines being just that guidelines, as opposed to actual contra-indications laws for example.

Guidelines are evidence-based, but the thing is that any evidence is a collection of data, which is arrived at by taking those at either extreme as well as all those in between. There is no window on the gut, so it's impossible to tell when each individual baby is ready, it's just that babies are more likely to be ready at 6 months than before then, not that no baby is ready before 6 months.

It's also very simplistic to say that babies who are hungry before 26 weeks just need more milk feeds. My DD (15 weeks) has reflux and really struggles with bigger milk feeds. Feeding little and often is fine but she has to be kept upright and quite still (LOL!) for 30 minutes after feeding, and there also needs to be time in the day for sleep and play (not for my own amusement, but for her own development), so really, feeding little(r) and (more) often doesn't meet all her needs either. I'm not planning on weaning imminently, but I suspect by 6 months I may not be able to get enough milk to stay in her to enable her to continue to gain weight and thrive. So saying no baby needs anything apart from milk (and if hungry, more milk) until 6 months is just too arbitrary, as there are individual circumstances, some of them nutritional, some of them developmental which might need to be taken into account.

The point I'm trying to make is that, although it's a cliche, all babies really are different, and just spouting the guidelines as if they are an absolute guarantee that your baby will fit them, can to be honest be as difficult for a struggling new zero-confidence parent as the very rigid and strict routines that some books advise. It seems that routines are a little 'frowned upon' by a lot of mn-ers as we 'should' be baby-led, yet when it comes to weaning, the approach seems to be the opposite, there are fixed guidelines and no baby could possibly want or need for anything more than breast milk until 26 weeks.

Anyway, InFlames I agree, that instinct needs to play a part too. Babies don't all play by the rules, and are just as unlikely to have read the guidelines as they are to have read the book about the sleeping through the night routine etc.

As for me, when DD reaches the point where she can't keep enough milk down to thrive, then I will introduce some solids.

D

Very interesting post Deliaskis, esp regarding 'The Rules' - the kind of 'perfect' parenting standard which seems to be around everything from cloth nappies, slings, no dummies, BLW etc etc ... ordinary choices are sometimes used as a kind of one-up-mummy-ship which I found really odd - I expected some of it (developmental milestones etc, and breastfeeding) but some's really taken me by surprise. Naivety and first time mummyhood I suspect :-)

There seems to be little value placed on instinct sometimes, and going with the flow and on what YOUR baby wants and needs, and on what feels right for parents .... Though when I tried to point this out to a friend she said I was being uber sensitive because "subconsciously you feel you've failed by not using a sling (DS hated it....) and because you give him a dummy (DS loves it...) and because you couldn't hold off weaning (errrr....) .... At least you're breastfeeding I suppose' with a mournful look on her face. Very odd!

Sorry, meant to clarify - by 'The Rules' I just meant to expand on what you mentioned regarding the routine / baby led parenting but the strictness on the 26 weeks issue.