nuckingfutjob, corriedale etc i am so in agreement.
you know, i think this 'watching adults eating'/'following food' thing is totally bogus. surely the babies have to learn to eat? might they not just be watching for that reason?
likewise the sleep disturbances... my DD slept worse after weaning than before, which is hardly surprising if you think that her digestive system was being asked to work in a way it never had done before (god knows i only have to eat a curry and my stomach is singing The Hymn to the Battle Republic half the night).
also, there just aren't the calories in broccoli, carrot etc, whether as finger food or puree, that there are in milk. why do people persist in promulgating these completely counter intuitive arguments for weaning?
Now, i know that makes me sound like i am cross with people here, which i amn't really. but every dreadful old biddie in my family was insisting i wean my dd from 3 months because SHE HAD EYES and was watching me. her mother. she watched me if i picked my nose, fgs, it didn't mean that she was ready to eat my bogies. (have i gone too far there? )
my own mother could just tell that dd wanted to eat from 3mths onwards. How? she has never shown the slightest psychic inclination before... and lo, the baby managed just fine til 6 months.
anyway, it gets right on my tits... can you tell?
6 months is advised. it's not the law, no-one will ring social services, do what you think is right etc etc, but if possible try to ignore the advice that just doesn't make sense and embrace the stuff that does...
(P.S. It's me who writes the blog by the way. i am normally much more pleasant than this.)