Weaning at what age??? [confused]

[EYPEdinburgh]

Im not a mother. Im a trainee Early Years Practitioner.

Im slightly confused about the subject of weaning.
Most websites ive looked at say the best time to wean is around six months old. Others say four months. Baby food is made for 4months onwards, so i assume that it is ok to wean at this age?

If a baby was to start being weaned at 7 months would you start them on food for a 4 month old or are they capable of coping with 7 month old food?

Good idea antoinette. Do the same with your HV.

Apologies if I have caused confusion in my posts, but what I have stated is based both on what I have read and what I have been told by specialists. I also did provide an additional link which showed that there is an increased risk of allergy in waiting until six months. This is not fact, they are studies. In fact a colleague of my friend is doing a study into weaning at 12 wks with food containing common allergens (surprisingly it passed the ethics committee!)...obvs I am not condoning weaning this early unless medically advised!

Tiktok, its all very well that you keep asserting that there is no evidence, but you are not backing this up with evidence yourself. Where do you get your information from? I would genuinely be interested in having the links to your information so that I can pass this on to friends in the field.

And having worked with the WHO, they are continually revising their recommendations based on renewed evidence (as far as all of their work is concerned). Any suggestion otherwise would imply that they make statements based on a whim, and does them an incredible disservice.

I have always maintained that the baby is the best indicator for weaning readiness, and these are just studies into weaning. No need to imply that these studies are the be all and end all...you may not understand the notion of scientific research but it does NOT mean that it is 100% the case for everyone, it is a tested hypothesis in one study.

I won't get into a debate with anyone who can't provide evidence for what they are saying whilst decrying someone else's statements, it was merely thrown in to the discussion.

As I mentioned before, this is not a medical forum, it is a "chat" forum. I keep my medical opinions for my medical forums and my discussions for these.

Meh, in my agitation I have been forced into my bookcase.

Taken from Clinical Paediatric Dietetics (it's the 2007 edition admittedly), page 601...

"Delaying introduction of solid foods beyond 3.5-6.0 months increases the risk of allergic disease in both high-risk and unselected cohorts of children"

References given as Zutavern et al 2004, Saarinen 2000.

"Weaning before the age of 3 months and beyond 6 months may increase the risk of allergic disease...Zutavern et al (2006) have looked at this much discussed topic in a prospective study in 2,612 infants. They found that the introduction of solid foods after four months decreased the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis. Delaying solid food introduction beyond 6 months did not provide any benefits".

These studies were published in Arch Dis Child, Clin Exp Allergy and Pediatrics journals respectively.

From above mentioned textbook...

Apologies for image quality!

missratty please do stop unless you can back up the assertion I challenged you on. Namely studies that show it is better to wean at four months than six months, and that WHO guidance is based on sterilisation of feeding equipment.

I have made no assertions so don't need to back anything up with links. I asked you to back up those two assertions made on April 9 and you haven't.

Just to make sure you know what I am asking: studies showing at 4 mths is better than at 6 mths.

At no point did I say weaning at four months was better than 6 months, I merely quoted the studies which suggest that weaning between four and six months could be more beneficial than waiting to six months (Zutavern) This is very different to asserting that weaning at four is better than waiting to six. The evidence for this has been provided in all of the information I have provided...so it would be worth reading it.

Sheesh, some studies suggest weaning prior to three months is beneficial in certain medical circumstances...I am sure you are also aware of those. However that is not in question here.

Again the information regarding WHO guidelines being partly due to (not entirely, I never stated entirely) hygiene is also within one of the earlier links where it clearly mentions sanitation and hygiene practices. When we worked abroad we were briefed on this ourselves by our team leaders (verbally, but link provided to documentation as stated), as the main studies conducted were in developing countries where access to clean water to even wash bottles was non existent, and therefore owing to recommendations that all equipment be sterilised until an infant is six months old (with the exception of premature babies etc.) it was felt safest to recommend exclusive breastfeeding until six months as the risk of food contamination was much lower.

You seem to have got a bit carried away with your assertions, and again haven't provided any information base for your statements, which TBH sound like they have just been read from an NCT workbook or some website.

I'm not prepared to continue debating as you clearly haven't read the information which i provided, and I'm starting to feel a bit embarrassed that you can't provide links to your evidence but are quite happy to challenge scientific theories and investigations.

You can continue to argue about it, but I disagree and am happy to do so as I have many friends and colleagues who work in this field, as well as having studied formally in the area myself. Ok I may not have become medically qualified in pediatric diet after my studies as I chose a different path, but I have done research in the area as it is of great interest to me, and I have a number of peers who do work in the field.

You seem to have become confused with scientific theory and a theory made up by some bloke in a pub. I am merely discussing and quoting evidence which has been scientifically tested. I am not saying it is fact or true, merely stating what has been scientifically tested.

If you can provide evidence as to what you are saying is "true" then I'd be happy to read that evidence and make my own mind up on the balance of all the information available.

(Just to also clarify that the work abroad was not done directly under the WHO, but in accordance with their recommendations as part of our training for a campaign regarding access to clean and potable water for developing countries for a charity).

Hmm. As an outsider to this argument (with no scientific background), it does seem like you are both basically saying the same thing! I.e. Babies should be weaned "around 6 months" and not before 4 months. Which is also current NHS advice isn't it?

Yes!! Thank you! That is exactly what I'm saying, that four to six months is the ideal. Lots of evidence to suggest that this is the case, and ultimately the decision to wean should be based purely on the infant's readiness, and not outside the recommended 4-6mo unless medically advised otherwise.

I've always thought that the reason that the 4 month bit is in there is because so many parents get advised by their older relatives to wean too early (12 weeks, 8 weeks even). So the emphasis is "not before 4 months", but ideally around 6 months. I've always thought that around 6 months means a couple of weeks either side, but based on baby showing signs of readiness.

I did BLW with my ds and would do it again with any subsequent children as I found it to work for me & ds. I can't see how a baby would be ready/able to do BLW at 4 months, or possibly even 5 months. So I would be very likely to wait till 6 months or very close because of that reason.

When your baby is ready. From working with babies it is my humble opinion most babies are ready between 5.5-7.5 months or so. Some maybe a little before that, some a little after. It depends on lots of things, but I go by the they are ready if they can sit up, reach forward, grasp the food, bring it to their mouth, remove some by chewing and biting, and swallow. It makes sense to me that outer development mirrors inner, but I am not a medical professional nor researcher so feel inadequate to make any assertions other than my own opinion on this thread.

I have waited until 6 months with each child to begin giving them food to play with, I have no idea when they ate their first foods rather than crumbled, threw or gummed them but it seemed to work for them. Six months of bf was my goal, and I did wait despite babies with reflux, one severe with weight gain issues, I was advised to wean early by her paediatrician but I chose not to based on my own baby, research, lifestyle, many factors.

To answer I believe 6 months is a decent guide but it is an individual decision.

Missratty I haven't made any assertions. I just asked you to back up the ones you made two weeks ago, that is

1. That 'studies have shown weaning earlier than six months to be more beneficial than waiting to six months '

And

1. That 'the only reason' for the WHO guidance is the sterilisation issue

Please note that when I have used quote marks I am quoting you.

If you made a mistake saying these things just say so!

I haven't challenged any 'scientific theories and investigations ', missratty.

I think missratty is saying that if you wean before 4 months or after 6 months the affects on allergies is the same. Therefore between 4-6 months is the best.

I am no longer sure what MissRatty is saying, Gimme....maybe she did not intend to post what she did, and when I asked her to back it up, she didn't re-read and didn't re-read what I said at the time.

I said

"There are no studies showing four mths is more beneficial than 6 mths. None.
Four mths as a starting date is not unsafe for most babies.
But it is not a myth that 6 mths is solely to do with sterilising of equipment. What rubbish.
Guidance in most countries is that babies are fine on breastmilk only till about 6 mths. In most cases there is no need for special baby food."

Note, I am not saying anything uncontroversial, or reading stuff from an NCT textbook, or repeating stuff I heard from a man in a pub :) - which is what you claim I am saying, MissRatty!

There are no studies showing that 4 mths is more beneficial than 6 mths - and none of your links or photographed textbooks say this.

Yes, there are some studies into allergy (only one aspect of nutrition) and the EAT study in particular in the UK is looking at this....it has yet to report. The photographed reference is from a 2000 study which compares allergy in kids who have solids BEFORE 3 mths and AFTER 6 mths - which is not the time frame under discussion.

And of course you did say WHO guidance is based solely on sterilisation. If you have re-thought that and realised this is of course incorrect, then hoooray :)

Please don't disparage my knowledge of, and reading, of research. If you think I have made any assertions that I need to back up, then tell me. But my guess is you have just read what I said incorrectly. I wonder if when I said'Four mths as a starting date is not unsafe for most babies' you thought I had not put in the word 'not'.....??? I can't explain your statements about me making unsupported assertions any other way :)