How many meals for 5 month old DD

[kmcomie]

Hi I am a first time mum and very confused by this whole weaning thing. I have exclusively breastfed until 17 weeks and then i have introduced Baby rice, Sweet Potatoe and now 1/2 a rusk. DD is having 2 meals a day and is eating 2 ice cube size portions at each meal and milk. Is this right?????? Should it be Less????? Want to get this bit right beofre introducing more foods.

Sounds like plenty. They official advice is not to start solids until 26 weeks so probably you should take it slower rather than faster.

I agree with flack, this sounds like more than enough at this stage, I personally wouldn't introduce any more meals until your DD is 6 mths old.

Agree, she only needs breast milk at this stage and until 26 weeks (or more).

at rusks, they contain gluton and wheat, and are about 1/3 sugar looking at the weights on the back.
agree with other, she doesnt need any food at all, if you realy feel you have to give him solids baby rice and fruit/veg should be it.
Why did you wean so early btw?

Hi Kmcomie

I totally sympathise with you. I am also a first time mum and find the whole weaning thing a bit of a minefield. My ds is now 20 weeks old but I have been weaning hims since 17 weeks, on the advice of my hv. He was a big boy when he was born 9lbs 5oz, and is now 19lbs. I was feeding him one meal a day of 1 ice cube portion of veg. He was waking up crying during night and I could hear his wee tummy rumbling. I thought his teeth were bothering him and when I told HV yesterday she said he was probably starving as he was such a big boy. Gave him a mashed up rusk yesterday afternoon and the wee soul wolfed it down! As of today he will be getting two meals a day (breakfast and lunch) and maybe some rusk at tea time(the gluten free, reduced sugar type) As the hv said, he won't eat it if he's not hungry. The 26 week guideline is just that, a guideline and it obviously varies depening on the size of your baby. I think you are doing just fine and you should trust your instincts, but I know how hard it is. I received a really good chart from Cow&Gate which gives a guide of how often and how much you should be feeding and at what age you should start to introduce new foods. You should try and get hold of a copy as I find it really useful.

They don't recommend weaning until 6 months.....however, I weaned at about 4 months and can heartily recommend a weaning book but we are not allowed to mention the author on here..........

I only gave fruit and a teeny tiny bit of baby rice, didn't bother with rusks (full of sugar).

My routine kind of went (from memory!):

7am - bottle
11ish - bottle then 1 tbsp of apple rice mixture
2ish - bottle
5ish - bit of baby rice
7ish - bottle

Then every few days other things were added, slowly, so you can monitor any reactions.

Didn't do meat until about 7 months or so.

I can heartily recommend The Book That Can't Be Mentioned and also Lorraine Kelly's weaning book, full of easy recipes.

xx

I wouldn't worry so much about it. I started weaning at 6 months, but just a few tastes to build up and dd only started having 3 meals a day at about 8 months. Remember milk is the most important thing until they're one

I would endorse Oliveoil's recommendation - step-by-step guide which tells you how much to increase the food by and when. My ds never ate as much as was suggested, but he's not the biggest boy in the world.

Whoever's book who you read, I think you'll probably end up on 3 meals a day plus 3/4 bottles. Breakfast seems to be the last one to be introduced. Ds also started having a mid-morning snack around 7.5mo and has recently started having an afternoon snack too at almost 9mo. Their tummies can't hold much so the idea is little and often, I think!

Hi - good quesion. I've just started weaning my ds at 20 weeks as he's very hungry, feeding more at night and refuses bottle so can't top him up. Started with baby rice on the weekend and he really enjoyed it. I've been told to introduce some veg at lunch time so he will have this for lunch and baby rice for dinner. I agree that the 6m thing can only be a guideline and can't suit everyone x

Is breakfast meant to be last? I did it 1st.

No. The 6 mth thing is not a 'guideline'. It is described as 'guidance' and ' recommendation' which is somewhat stronger and it is in use worldwide including the UK. It is likely to suit the nutritional needs of the majority of babies. I don't blame mothers for not knowing this, but I do blame health visitors for passing on rubbish information, at the expense of optimising babies' nutritional health.

It does not vary according to the size of the baby, either. Why would it, when solids do not add to the calorie intake? Solids earlier than the recommendation tend to replace milk, not add to it.

Babies' tummies rumble all the time It does not mean hunger.

I don't think there will be massive health differences between babies intro'd to solids at 17 weeks or 20 weeks, and the ones who have solids later to be honest - though for some susceptible babies, there could be. The point is that babies really do no need anything else but milk for 6 mths, and as it is a hassle, and an expense, to feed them more stuff, why bother!?

Alibobster, your HV sounds particularly inept, sorry - everything she has told you is wrong!!

OP - your baby is probably best off having no more food than she is having at the moment, and ditch the rusks

I doubt there's really any right or wrong in the order in which the meals are introduced. I think the logic behind the book I followed was to start with dinner as it helps them sleep through the night and to end up with breakfast because the expectation would be that they'd be ravenous first thing and possibly too overwrought to eat solids if they are just starting...

True, mumpbump.....but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter a jot what order the meals are given...why would it? It's a question of convenience. Some people might find it easier to start solid foods at breakfast, some might not....and if you are following your baby's lead in this, it could be anytime the baby shows an interest, after about 6 mths or so.

Tiktok, my baby is still taking just as much milk as before so it won't necessarily replace the milk if your baby is hungry.. If anything his number breast feeds seems to on the increase. The last 2 days he has demaded 12-13 feeds per day on top of the baby rice I have given him, whereas until a couple of weeks the number of feeds had gone down a little (9-10)

I agree that HV's seem to give out very innacurate advice, but I also feel it's important to be guided by your baby in these matters. A mother knows their child better than anyone and if you try to be as informed as possible from as many sources as possible then you can make educated choices over what to do with your baby. In my case, my LO was started on solids at 19 wks as the amount of milk he was having was huge (5 x 9oz bottles and 2/3 breastfeeds during the night). His milk intake is still high now he is on solids but he is much more content, sleeps through the night and has less reflux. Surely this must be better for him than waiting another 7 weeks and him being miserable?

I've fed ds today a breakfast of fruity cereal, a lunch of 1 ice cube of swede, 1 mashed up reduced sugar gluten free rusk plus his normal milk amount and he has scoffed the lot.He also seems more content than he has been in the last few days. Now surely he wouldn't have taken that if he wasn't hungry. I'm sorry tiktok, I know the recommendation for weaning is 6 months but I don't agree that my HV is wrong in everything she has told me.

The research that early solids tend to replace milk has mostly been done in developing countries - the researchers gave a bunch of women solids for their under-6 mth babies and compared them to a bunch of babies fed on breastmilk only . They found there was no difference in the growth of the babies, and their energy intakes were the same - so the solids were not 'extra' but replacing the milk. This is not so much of an issue in the developed world (such as the UK) - babies are less at risk of diarrhoea or other infections - but it does show that on the whole, babies don't actually need solids.

Now, individual babies may behave differently, and you cannot predict what will happen with each one. It's perfectly possible that a baby may appear happier with additional solids and enjoy them Unless he's very, very young, he's not going to be actively harmed by them, so there's no big problem....but just because he accepts them doesn't mean he actually needs them!

Your baby's happy, Ali; you're happy, too. Ditto moonster. So no probs there

Hi My lo is 19 weeks and I started her on solids this week because her night feeds are becoming even more frequent - she has been waking every couple of hours for a feed. She never has really slept through the night but the usual 5 or 6 hour stretch of sleep went so I have introduced solids and she still seems very hungry. They certainly dont seem to be replacing any milk feeds. As she has refused to take bottles since about 3 and a half months I am exclusively breast feeding. Too smart for her own good as she decided that no bottles - even with expressed milk were going to pass her lips just about the time I decided to go back to work on flexitime. She takes far more that the recommended couple of spoonfuls of baby rice or banana. In fact when I have stopped feeding her she cries until I offer her the food again. But she knows when she has had enough. I just wondered can you overfeed at this stage or will baby know when enough is enough?

Hi Watford, sounds like your in exactly the same position as me!! I know exactl;y what you're going through - my situation is exactly the same. I've been advised to give the recommended amount of food and finish it off with a milk feed (bf of course). I hope this helps. Please keep in touch and let me knowhow things go or of any useful tips you might recieve with regards to the weaning or getting lo to take the bottle

Oh yeah.. I was also advised to introduce bland veg before fruit as that is sweet and my put them off veg later. I hope this is useful and please keep in touch.

Can I just say that the size-of-baby-thing is a red herring. Ds was 10lb 5oz and was exc. b/f until he was 7 months. It's about the development of their digestive systems, not their supposed appetite.

but breastmilk (not sure about formula) is more calorific than baby rice.

Not sure how accurate this is, but my HV says WHO recommendations are more appropriate to babies in the third world and they encourage mums to breastfeed for longer as a form of contraception. My HV says this not the case in the western world and should wean between 17 and 26 weeks. Any thoughts?

Dennya, you ask for thoughts

Here they are: your HV is incorrect (you should have seen what I wrote first before deciding not to be rude!).

The recommendation is indeed the WHO's but it has been the UK's for over three years now. Nothing in the WHO's recommendation or the UK's mentions the contraceptive effect, as it is to do with infant nutrition, not maternal health. Anyone can read this here

17 weeks is held to be the minimum safe age for introducing non-milk foods - this is the UK's recommendation, not the WHO's. But this is for mothers who decide not to follow the recommendation for whatever reason, and are determined not to wait. There will be babies whose individual needs may appear to be met by solids before 26 weeks, but in general, the recommendation is 26 weeks.

Frankly, I think it is reprehensible for a health visitor to appear to be unaware of all of this - it has been, as I say, standard guidance for over 3 years. Where has she been? Does she not read anything???!