What is more important - when babies are weaned or what they are weaned on?

[Elf1981]

I got tutted at the other day because I said I'd weaned by DD at 5 months (albiet it a very slow process). The tutting person weaned their babies at nearly seven months. She argued that I had introduced the risk of allergies etc. I know I weaned 'early' but I weaned mostly on organic fruits & veggies to begin with (didn't do rice) until DD was about 6 months and started to add in a few organic meats. She's nearly 9 months now and we're moving away from the organic meats as we buy 'normal' meat for us, but she has good portions of fruit and veg a day, plus youghurts and sticks of cheese. The tutting woman weaned hers children later but fed them mostly foods that the family were eating or tins of spaghettie and the kids now have a shocking diet (probably eat takeaway nearly every night and veggies are only with school meals / Sunday lunch).
Just wondered what MNetters thought - is it when they eat or what they eat that is important? If you're careful of what you wean on, does it reduce the risk of allergies?

BTW I'll go through comments when I get home, I'm skiving on my lunch at the moment

I weaned at 4 months on home cooked food and couldn't give two craps what any one else does tbh.

think both really

I really would n't stress about other people's comments, but clearly it's best to do the best you can for your children

there are lots of theories about foods and intolerances and diseases but sooner or later there always seems a turn about

they are now saying that obesity is not necessarily related to increased risk of heart attack

each to their own etc etc, am not going to start a fight, and the developmental overlap between different 5, 6 and 7 month olds can be very big.

but [science hat on]
The later you leave it the more mature the gut is, the more foods the digestive system can cope with, and the more finely tuned the immune system has become.
[sceince hat off]

As extreme examples, giving any solids to a four-week-old is likely to do more harm than good, however organic /unsugared / unsalty they are; and a child exclusively breasfed till one year or beyond is probably ready to plough straight into whatever the rest of the family's eating.
I do confess to knowing absolutely nothing about allergies though.

Can't see any justification for tutting at you, or any smugness on your part about other people's 'shocking' diet, unless you actually live with them and see their takeaways.....but the research indicates it's timing rather than content of the weaning diet that counts, at least in the short term.

Recent research such as this one here looks at respiratory illness and otitis media, both of which are higher in babies on solids before six months.

Longer term, we know enough about diet and health to be fairly sure that years and years of crappy food is not good for kids or anyone else.

Allergies appear to come about partly (not wholly) as a result of early introduction of any food that isn't breastmilk, but small quantities of fruit and veg at five months is almost certainly ok for the majority of babies.

Didnt mean to sound smug about their diet, but it is bad. They dont food shop, they buy takeaway everynight rather than buying food in, and shops I have done with them consist of shopping at the freezer shops and buying lots of burgers etc.

I was just interested in the theories though, there seem to be a lot floating around.

It does sound a but awful, elf

But do you see the diff between short and long term effects?

Long term, your baby will prob be better off because her diet long term is good.

Short term, the other family have done better by introducing solids later.

I don't think the allergies thing is that important if all you did was fruit and veg at 5 mths.