Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Weaning

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

Original poster

Why is there such a discrepancy between what the Government advises (weaning at 26 weeks) and what HV's advise (16 weeks)?

52 replies

beatie · 31/01/2006 13:18

I cannot speak for all Health Visitors so perhaps should not generalise so much, but there is certainly that discrepancy between governmental advice and the advice dished out by the 2 HVs at the clinic I attend.

Overheard today:

HV: I see you already have another child so you'll knwo all about weaning.
Mum: Yes, but at that time they said to do it at 4 months and now it has changed to 6 months
HV: Hmmmm. Well, I defy anyone to hold out to 6 months.
Mum: Well,yes, he is quite big
HV: I say to do it at 16 lbs or 16 weeks.... which ever he reaches first

So, now I'm left thinking like I should just not mention that I am holding off until 26 weeks. Why are Health Visitors allowed to keep dishing out their personal opinions? Would we tolerate other health professionals advising against the latest research?

OP posts:
kama · 01/02/2006 18:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ja9 · 01/02/2006 18:56

have only thread original post, but had to post myself!

i found this to be true as well. it really bothered me. i tried so hard to get to 6 mths, and was only ever met with shocked looks from hvs when they heard i hadnt started weaning yet. i didn't get one iota of encouragement from them either.... grrr

Twiglett · 01/02/2006 18:56

because they simply don't think nor update their skills and are basically a waste of space?

lockets · 01/02/2006 19:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

tortoiseshell · 01/02/2006 19:04

I've just been given the breastfeeding leaflets for pg3, and I noticed that they specifically say 'you should exclusively b/feed your baby for the first 6 months' which is much more definite than when dd was born - she was weaned at 6 months, and it was SO easy - she was really ready for solids and just wolfed them down!

cull · 01/02/2006 20:16

It's not jusy the HVs though. everyone asks me if my ds is on solids yet. he's 19 weeks, over 20lbs, i'm bfing. But i'm determined to make it to 6 months.
And yet i feel like people think i'm starving the wee guy.

Racers · 01/02/2006 20:19

Keep going cull! Even if you were to start now, they would have something else to witter on about. "can't he have some buttons?" etc..!

I know what it's like but you must stick to your guns

Pruni · 01/02/2006 20:24

Message withdrawn

Pruni · 01/02/2006 20:25

Message withdrawn

cull · 01/02/2006 20:29

thanks racers. I know in my heart that i'm doing the right thing. It just gets to you after a while, you know?
But we have the 'weigh-in' tomorrow. so we'll see what he's gained. He's been putting on anywhere from half a pound to over a pound every week so he really really isn't starving!!

Racers · 01/02/2006 20:32

Aw poor fella - there obviously has to be common sense called into play.

Racers · 01/02/2006 20:39

oh I thought 'her lan' might be 'her Ian' (her DP/H)! LOL!

cull, DD is small (25th centile much of the time) and put on only a couple of ozs a week at around this age. but she was happy, alert, etc. Not gaining loads of weight, but still gaining. I got the wobblies after HV visit and came on MN and got the support I needed (until DH came back from work and reassured me also). Got to 24wks and she still wasn't biting my hand off to eat solids! Your DS might need it before then, but I'm sure you will know, either way.

footstep · 03/02/2006 08:55

this is a timely thread for me. dd is 18 weeks, exclusively b/f and growing brilliantly - we saw hv yesterday, who told me that:
-6 month recommendation was WHO and only applies to babies in developing countries.
-There's only a short window of time during which babies will accept solids, and if you miss it, they'll have problems eating.
-Delaying solids risks imparing oral development and hence speach etc.

grrrr!

found this Q&A for health professionals that counters all of these arguments.

I don't want to get in a row with hv, so my plan is to just avoid her until after 26 weeks, and for as long as possible, in fact.

LeahE · 03/02/2006 09:11

Our HVs made a big push to get everyone to wait until 26 weeks. They took the line that "whatever you do, don't under any circumstances start solids before 17 weeks, but it's really best to wait until 26 weeks - and it can be done, even with a big hungry baby".

I did start DS a bit early, because he was grabbing food and trying to eat it, but I wouldn't have done so otherwise.

aviatrix · 03/02/2006 21:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RedZuleika · 04/02/2006 22:38

I was disappointed to note that the weaning leaflets given out by the HVs at my surgery only mention exclusive breastfeeding in the context of a baby with a family history of allergies (these are provided by the NHS trust). I've also written to the Vegetarian Society because their weaning advice goes from 17 weeks and nowhere states that exclusive breastfeeding is recommended til six months. I have yet to receive a response.

I suspect the case is that advice says six months, but the reality is that a lot (most?) people want to start solids before this, so they're presenting the information as people will use it. However, I feel that if the government is serious about six months, they should damn well present a unified message. Is there any benefit for a formula fed baby to be kept off solids for another two months though...??

Personally, I don't go near my health visitors. If I want information, I research it myself. If I want the baby weighed, I use these scales , purchased for the bargain price of £13.99. Unfortunately, the 'baby trousers' are no longer available, but I put her in a cellular blanket and hook the scales to that.

Tommy · 04/02/2006 22:50

I think HVs probably don't keep up to date with new stuff. I was chatting to a friend of mine who's a GP, after the DSs had had chicken pox and I said that the NHSDirect website had said they were non-infectious after 5 days and she hadn't heard of that - she still tells people that it is until the spots have scabbed over. I was surprised she didn't know the most up to date info but I guess it happens with alot of health workers

RedZuleika · 04/02/2006 23:01

Having had chickenpox as an adult, I remember discussing this with the GP. I think it's five days from the appearance of the last pustule - by which time the earlier ones have scabbed over. I was signed off work for two weeks, as I recall - but most people seem to think they can go back to work / school well before this.

RedZuleika · 04/02/2006 23:06

Hmm... have checked NHS direct and it does seem to say day five of the illness. The GP I saw did check guidance at the time though.

Who the hell would want to go out after day five though?? You look terrifying and you're itchy as hell...

Tommy · 04/02/2006 23:11

I wanted to go out by then - never mind what the DSs felt up to.....

Amelily · 06/02/2006 15:26

Know this is from a much earlier message but surely the 'missing the window of opportunity' is utter b#ll**ks. Loads of babies are weaned later than 6 months and, clearly, they all learn how to eat and to speak. My dd2 is 20 1/2 weeks, weighs 17 1/2 lbs (double her birth weight) and I've no intention of weaning for another 4 weeks at least. Mentioned this to HV and all she said was 'Good luck'! Weaned dd1 at 17 weeks and it was a total and utter waste of time and effort.

melrose · 06/02/2006 15:53

Excuse my ignorance, but Why are we now meant to wait till 6 months (apart from the allergy stuff)? I weaneed DS at about 17 weeks, he couldn't get enough food! Still bf till 6 months and has always been v healthy, I just do not really understand why we are now being advised to wait?

surreynanny · 06/02/2006 16:06

The guide lines were developed by the World Health Organisation and therefore were geared towards third world countries, obviously if you don't have a clean water supply it is safer for a baby to stay on breast milk alone, however in the U.K. We tend to have plenty of clean water ( unless you live in the Thames Valley Area lol) and so these guidelines should be taken for what they are just guidelines. If your child seems hungry and is sleeping less finishing breast/bottle feeds and still seems to want more then they probably do!
www.surreynanny.com

Racers · 06/02/2006 16:12

Sorry, but advice from the World Health Organisation does not mean that it is "therefore" advice for the Third World only. Individual countries are welcome to take up their guidance or not and ours does. Individual parents are welcome to take up their guidance or not also.

Racers · 06/02/2006 16:19

Having re-read, I see you say 'geared towards' so not just for them, but I still think it is advice for all, not geared to a particular region (although it may be more critical that it is followed due to water issues you mentioned)

Is it really that bad in Thames? We have lovely water here up north