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I must say, this rather struck me at the beginning of the thread - so many HPs give outdated and/or generally rubbish advice, and the OP had one who was up to date and correct... but was planning on ignoring her.
Ironic, eh?

hope you found some helpful stuff though flumpy, even if we have wandered off into our own debate a bit

I have the same thing with DD who's 4.5 months. My HV said if you think she's ready then go for it with two golden rules - always give full milk feed first and avoid gluten (ie wheat).
She said start with baby rice as first taster and then slowly add puree fruit and veg - and individually so you know if it agrees with your baby or not.

Does make you wonder though when different HV give different advice!

It's due to lack of training and not keeping up.

As a teacher I am expected to keep up to date. What if I got the cane out?

boo - what makes you think dd's ready?
Is she sitting up well alone, stealing bits off your plate, putting food in her mouth and chewing it?
Or just big and hungry?

She's ready and loves the new textures. Its only first tasters - its not replacing her milk feeds at all, hence milk feeds first.

If I had gone by ANYTHING my (female !) GP and HV had to say, I would have been formula feeding since week one example:

"Oh, a lot of my patients give a bottle [formula] at night, you will find you can get away with just the ONE you know"
[GP's helpful "advice" when DS was exactly ONE WEEK OLD (I had said I was exhausted from lack of sleep and severe pelvic pain due to long labour)].

12 months later and still bf - I went to see her again re. my insomnia (please note DS has been sleeping through since he was 9 months old - I have had insomnia since I was 13) she said, "oh, do you find it difficult to fall asleep because you are still bf ?"

I am still bf the same 2.6 yo toddler - DESPITE their efforts

Just some examples of NHS advice. You can see why I didn't go back for advice. re. solids.

There has been plenty of research on gut maturity for babies and their readiness for solids. Please do look this up before posting about your opinion on these guidelines, upon which these guidelines are based.

It is pretty irresponsible to dismiss these guidelines on the basis of anecdotal evidence, when you consider that many thousands of parents visit this website, seeking advice.

The very best we can do is provide people with the most current and up to date advice.

I actually do find it laughable that people think that the World Health Organisation issues its guidelines to the world, but are biased towards developing countries. Just why would they?

The above and simple health issues aside:

Why is it so difficult to wait a matter of weeks?
What is the rush?
What is the benefit when it is patently clear that a baby can obtain all its nutritional requirements from breastmilk or formula for the first 6 months - at least!
What is the benefit when it is patently clear that milk holds more calories than anything else you could possibly give?
If guidelines are to be interpreted to a child's individual needs - why is it important to adhere so rigidly to the weight charts/centiles for babies considered either under or overweight to justify you disregarding the weaning guidelines?

Here's some 1950s/60s advertising slogans for craven A cigarettes - great advice!

For your throat's sake, smoke Craven 'A' - they never vary

Smoke Craven 'A' - will not affect your throat

Craven 'A' - It's kind to your throat

Made especially to prevent sore throats

That was the advice at the time and then these pesky medical professionals went and did some research that suggested smoking might not be so good for you after all. Why do they keep changing the advice? It's not like medicine is advancing or anything. You should smoke if you feel it's right for your throat, I was advised it would be kind to my throat, - never did me any harm etc etc

Sorry am I being flippant?

Medical advice on weaning may change again next year for all I know, but until it does I intend to stick to the most current available research as I would do for as much of my childcare issues as I can possibly read up on whether it be breastfeeding, skincare, discipline, education etc etc etc.

I saw a GP a few months ago, who was going to prescribe something for my skin.

When I asked him if it was okay to take whilst b/feeding - he looked puzzled, then said, "But, your Son is 18 months old???"

"YES" says I.

"You only need to breastfeed for one year only"

"Er, no" I replied. "The WHO says that maximum 'benefit' is achieved if you b/feed for 2 years".

"Oh, do they?"

" So, what can you give me instead....?"

1. wasn't GP advice, was paediatricians
2. From my experience, I've found doctors very supportive of BF, as they have often done so themselves. Although only the female ones...
3. Baby rice is pretty much pure starch. Anti reflux formula is thickened with rice starch...what is the difference? I give my baby thickened EBM. Should I give him anti reflux formula instead? Surely BF is better?
4. The guidelines are just that...a guide.

And for those with babies over 4 months who are giving their child some food they actually state: 'If an infant is showing signs of being ready to start solid foods before six months....they should be encouraged.' www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/09/69/99/04096999.pdf

1. And as for advice on this site and the latest professional advice...what if I were to post about wanting a home water birth for a VBAC for example? I suspect the advice I'd get here would be different to published evidence based guidelines.

But the signs that people generally think are signs arenet actually signs iykwim. Someone mentioned early about the signs being sitting up, pincer grip, lost that tongue reflex etc.

Yellowpoppy - your link is useful, but you actually omitted a crucial bit of text.

"Solid foods should not be offered before
four months (COMA 1994/23). However, if an
infant is showing signs of being ready to start
solid foods before six months, for example,
sitting up, taking an interest in what the rest of the family is eating
tasting finger foods then they should be encouraged."

There can't be many under 6 month olds with that sort of dexterity coupled with the ability to sit unaided, but granted if they are able to do all of that then that possibly sits with some of the BLW guidelines.

ahhh, convenient ommission

Yellowpoppy, I was always given to believe that you shouldn't add anything to a baby's bottle. I suppose I see what you're saying about it maybe being equivalent to an anti-reflux formula. But do I understand correctly that you've done this on the basis of advice on a medical internet forum. Have you discussed this with any doctors in r/l?

Thanks for the link to that DoH paper - I hadn't seen that before.

starch to thicken formula for a reflux baby doesn't justify starch for a 4 month old baby who is just hunngry for more milk.

I do love the "taking an interest" sign.

My son started taking an interest in books and newspapers when he was about four months old. Clearly he was ready to learn to read.

Quite NQC
My dd was not quite 3 mths when she clawed the piece of banana cake on the plate on the arm of the sofa while I was breastfeeding her and shoved it to her mouth, did I go and fetch her a cappucino to have with it?

Twas handy though, it became obvious she had an egg allergy, further affirming my view not to wean until the latest I could leave it.
I am ready for George Clooney, it does not however mean I should get him or even could

It strikes me that very very few people have actually read the WHO guidelines. If they had they would know that:

1. The guidelines are for everyone, including developed world babies.

2. The crucial stuff:
   The evidence they examined looked primarily at nutritional needs of babies. Sterilisation and other issues were secondary to the main question:

* Can babies be fed on just milk for 6 months without running out of nutrients, including iron? *

The answer was YES.

Babies under 6 months of age don't need to be fed. At the same time, there is mounting evidence that early weaning can be harmful.

So of course you can wean earlier if you want to, but why would you want to???

I thought YP was doing this because she has a reflux baby?

nope.

'I am giving my child baby rice - he is 3 1/2 months. I haven't told my HV as I suspect she would explode
I looked at the guidelines. What they say is that weaning before 6 months shows no benefit over weaning after six months. They also say that there is a small increased risk of things like coeliac disease - so I'm not planning on giving any gluten until 6 months old. They also say that all babies are different and that advice must be tailored to the child. The other thing to say about the guidelines are that they are based on WHO advice - which clearly will take into account things like water safety and quality of diet in the developing world when recommending exclusive BFing.
Interestingly, I posted a question about early weaning on an internet forum for doctors (DH is doctor). The overwhelming majority told me to do what felt right for my child and that baby rice is so pure that it was extremely unlikely to do any harm at all.
Sorry about the crappy grammar in this post! '

Interesting discussion!

Just thought I'd mention that I'm a doctor and I knew zip all about breastfeeding or weaning until I had to do it myself.

Remember, when a female GP advises you about breastfeeding or weaning they have not been trained on the subject and aren't likely to have read anything recently.

They're basing their info on what they were vaguely told at medical school 10, 20, 30 years ago, and/or what they did with their own children (10, 20, 30 years ago). Or what their HV said, and we all know what that means.

Remember, a GP who is a mum has all the same insecurities of any mum, and if told that they may have done the wrong thing by weaning their baby at 4 months, they're likely to argue against the guidelines.

But they're not arguing as a doctor, they're arguing as a mum.

(I weaned my children at 6 months by the way, after reading the evidence carefully).

Ah, OK. It was just the comment about it being equivalent to anti-reflux formula that made me think that.

I omitted the bit of text cos I couldn't be arsed to write it all out (but I did include the link!

I started giving my baby solids cos I thought he was hungry (he is huge )- always chewing and crying for more milk, wanted to feed every hour or so. My GP suggested that it could be reflux, but I didn't want to give formula. Thickening expressed milk was my compromise. It has worked brilliantly - he is more settled and also goes longer between feeds - now just 2hrly . Sometimes I give him a bottle with a bit of rice to thicken it, other times I give him some from a spoon and he seems to be able to swallow it fine - I remember my DD spitting food out at first cos she couldn't swallow. I posted on the other forum cos I was concerned I could be harming him and I was reassured by their advice. I posted to reassure the original poster that (based on the advice given to me) they probably aren't harming their baby by giving food early.

My reading of the guidelines was that certain foods are more likely to cause problems and so should be introduced later - like wheat or eggs. Rice, pear, banana etc are very low risk in terms of allergies.

Piffle! I saw on another weaning thread you saying you lied to your HV about weaning early because she wanted you to and she didn't.

I kept meaning to post and can't find the thread now - I wondered if it's a good plan to lie - well, forever, anyway.

If you pretend you're weaning, all you do is confirm their belief that "a tsp of baby rice will help babies gain weight/be more contented/sleep for England/whatever other myth they want to sling at it" - so it might be an idea to go back to them and say "you know when I said I had weaned my baby, it was because I thought you'd pressure me if you knew I wasn't. I wasn't, I wanted you to know that my baby didn't have any solid food till x months, so it doesn't skew your idea of what is possible for a baby".

I've heard HVs say "he's a big baby, he'll never go that long without food" - mine said "and how much food is he having" to me when DS1 was 4mo exactly. FGS.

Not having a go, btw, Piff - just pondering.

I also wonder whether telling your HV you've lied to her is a good plan though...! Imagine what she might imagine of you in the future... Hmm...maybe I didn't think this through!

I weaned at 3 months with HV advice,2 hourly feeds, the milk just didnt satisfy her enough. Rice at first and then introduced fruit and other tastes bit by bit. My 12 year old eats anything and has a galvanised stomach.
I understand that guidelines are there for a reason, but I have not known of a baby who could wait till exactly 6 months iyswim.