Going to start weaning 4mth old this week..........................

[Flumpybumpy]

Spoke to my HV as DS is feeding very well with formula. He is putting on weight well and very happy. Sleeps through etc etc....
He is taking a real interest in food and started waking for night feeds etc classic signs that they want more.
My friend is horrified that I am not waiting until he is 6mths, like the guidelines say.
Told HV, she said that weaning is not recommneded until the baby is 6mths however, I am his Mum and she is only there to offer advice, I should do whatever I feel is right for my baby and seek her advice if I need help.
I weaned DD at 4mths with no problems at all, and have to say I find this 'you mustn't do this / that' attitude a bit much.
I know they are only going by new guidelines etc... but my HV does have apoint, all babies are different and only their Mothers know them well to enough to make informed decisions. Maybe we all need to trust our instincts more and use the 'professionals' for support and advice rather than a rulebook.
FB x
P.S. not too sure about BLW though

I think they actually strip the gut lining in some way. This can even happen to adults suddenly eating excessively hot curries, apparantly.
By the way - I'm not a medical person - I'm just believing what my friend told me!

I did wean ds at 4 months, but under pressure and it didn't take off until six months and finger food. With dd I just breast fed on demand. And yes, she did start wanting to feed more often at around four months, but I just fed her more often, and her weight gain continued to follow the same pattern. I wonder if we just think that babies should be sleeping through the night by a certain age, so anything that interrupts that is automatically an indication that something needs to change with regards to feeding. I'm not sure that's the case (of course, that did mean more night feeding for us, and I won't pretend I enjoyed it).

And I would really stress how much easier it is to wean at 6 months. No need for purees. Straight into finger food. What's not to like? As I've said before, I would be wary of something called 'baby-led weaning', just because of my own silly prejudices. But now I know something about it, it is pretty much what I did with dd, and how ds really got going on solids

Actually I made 'Chocolate Vodka Chillis' from the Green & Black's cookbook recently - the skin under my fingernails burned for about 3 days so I can well believe they'd wreck your insides!

Becky - And I would really stress how much easier it is to wean at 6 months. No need for purees. Straight into finger food.

See that is great. I started about 5 months I think and all the purees and stuff were such a PITA. And then I would give babyfood and feel shite about it.

BeckyB you do sound sensible.
I always think... look at my kids' friends... a whole bunch of 11 - 13 year olds, all from different backgrounds, probably all weaned at different ages, some breast fed, some bottle fed, some potty trained at 18 months, others at about 4, some dry at night at 18 months, some not till 10.

But here they are now - all fit, healthy, clever, active, well rounded lads.

So we agonise over what we do to them as babies and most of them survive the experience.

Wow, thanks for all your responses.

Like becky I am wary of the term 'baby-led weaning'.

I do agree however that the purees thing is a PITA. When I weaned DD I used to feed her purees and have 'finger foods' on the tray as well. She would often pick up a carrott and have a go herself, but admittedly she was about 6mths at this point.

She was off of purees and fully on solid food before 12mths and even off her bottle. I'm not bragging but when I weaned her I was given so much conflicting advice etc I ended up doing it my own way (didn't have Mumsnet then either).

This time I am curious, BLW has got me intrigued.

FB x

ignore the term, then, it's totally wanky. just think of it as finger food and you'll be well away.

and surely if people are giving babies anything to eat (although especially chillies, i'd imagine) at two months then that would damage the gut lining? isn't that exactly what we are talking about here?

Well, I'm a child of the early 70s and was given cereal at 4 weeks.

I never had a weight problem in my life.

When my three were little the guideline was to start at 4 months, this is what I did with dd1. DD2, however I started at 12 weeks, which was in the same way you are planning to do now, going against the rules. HV agreed that if I thought it was necessary, which I did. DD2 is now 5 she has no allergies, has a reasonable appitite and lives for fruit and veg and will happily pass up on sweets and chocolate.

DD1 and DS (who wasn't interested in food till about 6 months) are bigger and fussier and sweeter toothed.

Go with your instincts.

Flumpy - you are obvioulsy doing what feels right for you - which is fine.

But I don't agree that health profs. should just say "fine, it's your baby, you do as you wish". They are meant to be trained profs. and if a mum or dad goes in one day and says I want to give my 3 month old lobster and champagne for his dinner, they should try and talk the parent out of it , even though it sounds yummy, it wouldn't do the poor baby much good

Of course, I am exagerating for comic relief but leaving the 4 month or 6 month thing aside, I did my own research on weaning and decided to wait until 6 months.

I knew that WHO and UNICEF recommend waiting until 6 months. So I went and read stuff to find out why. It turns out there are valid scientific reasons for later weaning, for example babies that are weaned later are less likely to have allergies, less likley to lose interest in bf (if they are bf) and less likley to get sick.

Now, I know there will be loads of mums and dad with anecdotes on how their babies didn't have allergies or get sick, etc, when they weaned earlier than 6 months, but I am talking generalities here. IN GENERAL it is best to delay weaning to 6 months.

A caring, knowledgable, compassionate, well-trained HV, GP, MW, whatever should be able to put their point across (pro's and con's of weaning before 6 months) without being mean and nasty. I know they are a minority, but in a perfect world that is what they would do !

It is important to be happy about the choices you make, you seem happy about yours, which is good

Thanks Yellowrose.

My HV has never been the type to tell you what to do she is more of a 'here's my advice, now you decide what to do with it' person.

However, my friends HV is a complete little Hitler who has got my frined so nervous she won't do anything with her HV say so. She wanted to wean her son at 5.5mths as she thought he was ready (she also has another DS who weaned at 4mths) she spoke to the HV who told her under no circumstances should she start early and she would be seriously risking her babies health if she did. I know she is in a small minority of babycare professionals that are like this. My friend ended up asking me what I thought and I said the same as my HV, she should do what she thinks is right.

I have some baby rice and I am going to try DS later this week and see how he takes it. I will also do as suggested and sit him near me with a plate of soft cooked 'finger-foods' and see if he has any interest, that way I will have tried both methods and will know how I feel about them a bit more.

FB x

the thing is though that until recently (within last few years) professionals were advising parents that weening at 4 months was ok. So how do you possibly say that what was acceptable today suddenly isn't today when millions of babies were weened at 4 months. Alergies in children haven't increased because of early weening, parents have been weening at 4 months and before in some cases, for centuries, it's only recently that alergiss have increased so signifficant. IMO it has more to do with what is in the food than when we give the food. In fact isn't there a study going on at the moment looking into the instances of nut alergies, and trying to establish whether more children are actually alergic to nuts because they're not exposed to them early enough?

I actually read somewhere that one of the reasons why the guidelines were changed was because a lot of parents were weening at 8/12 weeks, so by moving the goalposts to 6 months as it were, meant that parents were more likely to start weening at 4 months.

I weened ds at 16 weeks. It had nothing to do with night wakings, he never woke in the night, he didn't demand extra feeds, but he did reject his milk and was screaming because he was hungry. He would drink half a bottle of milk and then cry for food but wouldn't drink milk. I gave baby rice and never looked back. And yes, if I had another baby I would do the same.

I know what you mean flumpy. My HV was also quite dreadful, and paranoid to boot, so I stopped visiting her. I have been much happier doing my own thinking and deciding what is best for DS

Wanna - I think it is very culture specific. I know in some countries it is still common to give porrige or rice or drinks very early on, but for eaxample in Japan even now babies are weaned onto solids at 8 months. I have a friend who lives there and says that is what her GP advised and that it is normal practice there to wait to 8 months.

I think the drive here in Europe and USA to wait to 6 months also has something to do with poor bf rates. Leaving allergies and other things aside, it has been well-researched that babies weaned on to solids much sooner than 6 months, will take in less breastmilk, reduce mum's milk supply and this may lead to an end to bf.

So, yes, it is complicated, but I think there are various reasons for saying 6 months, not all to do with allergies or sickness.

expat, i was a child of the seventies and weaned onto cereals at two weeks (by midwives as my mum was very ill ). i've had terrible IBS for most of my adult life.
having cancelled each other's anecdotal evidence out, may we now proceed with some research-based chitter-chatter?

it's not THAT recent that advice has changed to 6 months. WHO have had it set at 6 months for years, but this government couldn't or wouldn't support maternity leave for that long, so it fell to ok well go ahead at 4 months if you have to. plus people manage to justify it to themselves as 4 months is a major growth spurt and developmental milestone, everything goes topsy turvy so it seems like ok lets see if some solid food calms things down. i see so many people in a nice tidy routine up until 3 and a hlaf months, everything going well, sleep not bad, happy baby, then it all goes pear shaped as baby wants more food. soooooo, out come the baby rice and purees.

Aitch - sorry to sound thick, but what is IBS ?

irritable bowel syndrome

I'm another "weaned really early, IBS since forever". For what it's worth.

And I weaned DS1 at 16 weeks, and DS2 at 6 months. DS2 was much less work, and much more pleasant and natural, imo.

Oh ok, my DH has IBS too. I gather also for the same reason.

dh has IBS also, seeings as we're on about it. he was weaned at 3 months.

Can I just say the WHO have been saying 6 months for over 11 years now. It is not a recent fad and hasnt changed since. A baby is simply not ready for solids until around 6 montha - some slightly earlier, some slightly later. So much of it seems to be a race as it aint for the child.

Many of the side effects dont show until adulthood so saying my 10 year old is fine is pretty irrelevant.

Of course loads of children are fine with it but it's a risk with no benefit to it.

Thanks for that info. Didn't realise it was 11 years.

You don't need to put "FB x" after each post, we can see who you are by the name in the blue bit above each message.