Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Original poster

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

221 replies

Flumpybumpy · 08/01/2007 09:50

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

OP posts:
nothercules · 09/01/2007 21:29

Let's face it if health professionals actually all knew what they were talking about we probably wouldnt have this topic area and certainly not so many messages asking for help after having been given crap advice.

yellowrose · 09/01/2007 21:29

YES, bf is a medical issue and most importantly it is a PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE.

nothercules · 09/01/2007 21:29

I meant the breast and bottle feeding topic but i guess similar thing applies to weaning.

AitchTwoOhOhSeven · 09/01/2007 21:30

interesting... personally i think that as a new first-time mum you are just so desperate for validation and support that you can be lucky or unlucky who you get it from. i think my support was rubbish, breastfeeding-wise, and it upset me at the time more than i can say.

we just don't have the kinds of policies in place where bfing is the norm, so until then i suppose it'll remain medicalised (insofar as docs will say 'look, there's this medicine for people who are having difficulties... it's called formula'.)

but then our view of women and what they are here for is so fucked up anyway... am depressed at this whole thing...

nothercules · 09/01/2007 21:31

Just realised there are two yellow posters here. I was very confused there with different messages!

AitchTwoOhOhSeven · 09/01/2007 21:32

Yellowrose, I didn't refer to a bfing mafia, my GP did. and yes, i found it neither helpful nor polite.

anonymousdr · 09/01/2007 21:32

Sorry - typing in a hurry as I'm meant to be getting on with something else -

Yes, of course they need to know about the medical aspects.

But my feeling is that it's the midwives and HVs who should be really well up on "normal" bfeeding - to the extent where a GP could treat the mastitis, then refer a woman to her HV for help with latching on.

I'm not a GP by the way - I'm a paediatrician - but all the GPs I know are absolutely exhausted and demoralised by the amount of extra work they're taking on, and would struggle to find time to be experts on breastfeeding, or to sit iwht a woman for hours and hours helping her get the latch right.

Obviously they should know the basics. (IMO! )

yellowrose · 09/01/2007 21:34

I know Aitch - I wasn't getting at YOU, I am pissed off with your GP (as indeed with mine !).

Please do ask her to look up the word MAFIA in her dictionary though. I find the term offensive.

nothercules · 09/01/2007 21:34

That's how it felt in hospital. Both times I had kids they were clearly understaffed and giving formula was a quick fix for any breastfeeding problemsa s they didnt ahve the time as well as the knowledge to give proper help and advice.

PeachyClair · 09/01/2007 21:36

when my DDS was a baby (not that long ago, he's 7) the advice was to wean at around 4 months. Personally I would advocate going with 6 months (my ds btw has loads of allergies and intolerances) but if you don't, please be careful- pear is supposed to be good for hbeing a non-allergen and easy to prepare for weaning

chocolatekimmy · 09/01/2007 21:43

I started weaning at 4 months for my first 2 (2001 and 2004) as for some unknown reason I had it in my mind that 4 months was the age. I think maybe because all the baby food providers put that on the jars (even though I home cooked) and the books (Carmel for example show a chart from 4 months). I researched all the WHO papers this time round and it probably does make more of a difference in more underdeveloped countries, i.e.: where young babies can die if given solids before 6 months because their gut isn't as developed and risk of disease/lack of hygeine and sanitation etc.
This time round I have waited until 25 weeks, despite my daughter starting to wake again in the night from 19 weeks. I just perservered with the night waking and additional feeds for her sake.
I don't think weaning at 4 months had any detrimental effect on my older two, both healthy and eat a vast variety of foods.
HV at clinic today said the WHO guidelines don't take into account whether you live in Romsey or an African town and that the advice is no earlier than 4 months. At the same session I overheard a woman talking about the weight of her baby and saying how she started him on solids at 8 weeks!

anonymousdr · 09/01/2007 21:54

"HV at clinic today said the WHO guidelines don't take into account whether you live in Romsey or an African town and that the advice is no earlier than 4 months."

Please please challenge the HV - she's talking out of her bottom.

nothercules · 09/01/2007 22:00

Babies stomachs in developing countires stomachs develop at the same rate as babies in the developed world.

yellowrose · 09/01/2007 22:02

chocolate - the baby food people have a lot to answer for. I am very interested in lobbying the Dept. of Health to stop companies from putting "from 4 months" on their jars. I know people like Baby Milk Action and others have been pushing for this important change.

The practice is now banned in certain European countries and it should be banned here.

yellowrose · 09/01/2007 22:06

chocolate - most young babies in developing countries do not die due to introduction of solids, they usually die because they are given formula mixed with contaminated water or because they have low to non-existant immunity to common illnesses due to lack of bf.

PeachyClair · 09/01/2007 22:10

or because they live in malaria prone countries etc etc etc.

Years ago, this advice was standard- 4 months- I still ahve my child development GCSE rextbook somewhere saying excactly that, and loads of HV's grew up and were trained then. They didn't see massive problems so they assume its alright, which it really isn't.

Although casting my mind back..... now quite a few people start to wean at 5 mionths and worry about thebeffects, well back then (as far back as 2000 LOL) you'd hear loads of mums boasting about weaning from 3 months, some even earlier because their baby was big or hungry or whatever. So even if the 6 month thing hasn't informed HV's as much as it should, I do think it has redressed the early weaner issues somewhat.

Twinklemegan · 09/01/2007 22:12

I was really surprised to see jars of baby food containing chicken and other meats labelled as stage 1, from 4 months on.

yellowrose · 09/01/2007 22:16

Twinkle - if the baby food companies could get away with it they would be making jars of "lobster and champagne" for babies "from 4 months"

Sorry to sound so cynical, but I have spent a good many years representing big bucks corps. make money, so I know how unethical the big corps. can really be. Public health is not something they are that bothered with.

chocolatekimmy · 09/01/2007 22:17

Sorry I will clarify part of my posting - I don't think some babies die because of an under developed gut, my understanding of it is because food can be contaminated with disease and the younger the baby is, it may have more of an adverse affect.

Yellowrose, I couldn't agree more with the affect the baby food companies have. I am sure it says in tiny letters on jars/websites that WHO recommend 6 months. Lobbying would be a good idea - why does UK lag behind on these things?

yellowrose · 09/01/2007 22:24

chocolate - thanks for clarifying your post. Yes, defo. the general lack of hygiene (due to lack of clean water and poor living conditions) in some countries can lead to more baby deaths.

I don't know the answer to your qusetion, it may have something to do with the power of big money (quite often the people who make formula also make baby food) and the way they lobby the Govt.

We lag behind many European countries on bf legislation too.

NotQuiteCockney · 09/01/2007 22:36

Surely BF is a medical issue in the same way that eating is a medical issue. If it's working well, then it's not a medical issue, but if it's gone wrong in any way, then you may need help.

That being said, of course GPs don't need to know how to sort out latch - they need to know where the BFCs are, and to be able to refer people to them.

AitchTwoOhOhSeven · 09/01/2007 22:38

and those bfcs might need to have done more than a three-day course in the subject...

anonymousdr · 09/01/2007 23:54

aitch

Yes, NQC, the way I picture it is GPs having a gatekeeping role - they know where to access the help without necessarily providing it themselves.

But they still need to know enough not to scupper early breastfeeding by giving a woman wrong advice before she's had a chance to see the BFC.

IMO knowing the main content on the kellymom.com site is probably enough to give basic sound advice or at least not perpetrate any myths. First Do No Harm and all that.

kiskidee · 10/01/2007 00:30

i have to also agree that bf is a medical issue and would fall under preventative medicine.

Most starkly put, a ff infant in the UK is nine times more likely to be hospitalised than a bf infant.

And they say that the NHS is interested in cutting the cost of care.

AitchTwoOhOhSeven · 10/01/2007 00:38

really kiski? that's amazing. where did you get that figure?
i'm presuming that there is a demographic element to the figure but it is nevertheless startling.