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

sorry, can't remember where i read it. it was one of the things that made my eyes widen which is why i remember it stuck in my mind. it may have been about the US but I think that the figures would be compatible if it were so.

anon dr - I am glad you mention kellymom. I discovered it through googling for "fussy baby at breast" when DS was 3 months old and I didn't know about MN nor had I had any success with GP, HV, etc

DS and I got thrush when he was 3 months old, he did not feed for an entire 24 hours at which stage I panicked (I later realised his mouth was too sore). I rushed him to the A&E which has paediatricians available. Paed. didn't recognise the thrush or my symptoms (shooting pains in my breasts after feeds)and I was sent home with a "congratulations for bf for 3 months" !

I went home in tears and started googling. I remember then discovering and sighing with such relief that everything I read on kellymom made so much sense. In effect I ended up self-diagnosing that we had thrush. A dangerous thing in certain circumstances.

I started pumping and feeding DS by syringe. He would drink by syringe as he didn't have to suck. To my relief he lost no weight that week and I treated us both with Daktarin for him and Canestan on my nipples. We got rid of it in about a month.

Kellymom is a godsend and the woman who runs it should be given a Nobel Prize for Breastfeeding or something . I can honestly say her website is the main reason I gained confidence in my body to bf without anxiety for this long.

[disclaimer: I do not get paid by kellymom !]

There probably is some demographic stuff in those stats. Much like the one that says that if everyone in the US breastfed, 720 fewer infants would die per year there. cite

I found this paper which describes the relationship between formula feeding and infant illness and hospitalisation in a study conducted by the University of Arizona. You can view the abstract but the main conclusions were:

"In the first year of life, after adjusting for confounders, there were 2033 excess office visits, 212 excess days of hospitalization, and 609 excess prescriptions for these three illnesses per 1000 never-breastfed infants compared with 1000 infants exclusively breastfed for at least 3 months."

it's pretty stark, but luckily i mix fed for five months so am going to adopt a 'la la la, can't hear you' apporach i think.

Sorry Aitch! That wasn't meant to be formula-bashing - I just thought it was interesting in light of Kiski's post.

Also a proportion of the hospital admissions were for tummy upsets caused by poor hygiene, ie not the formula per se, just the lax mums that didn't wash up properly.

Still it is noteworthy, especially as they were only studying three specific conditions, other medical conditions were presumably ignored, so the total number of admissions for the FF infants could have been even higher in actuality.

oh don't worry, it is interesting, that's for sure. and it all makes sense, of course. nothing better than breastmilk for babies, but it is still a when you see the figures.

I don't doubt the figures and agree that it is important research, but this kind of thing doesn't half make you feel cr*p when you can't b/f exclusively. The particular thing that almost sent me potty was the stat that f/f babies are more likely to die of SIDS (so sorry if that is an insensitive comment at this time). Clearly breastmilk is the best for baby, but I do feel that there is quite a lot of demographic element hidden in these stats. Tummy bugs in bottle fed babies caused by poor hygiene (in itself probably due to poor education) is a prime example.

Yellowpoppy - no need to apologise for the hijack, I am glad this has started a good debate, hearing everyones views and opinions is really interesting. I am also glad that everyone is being so nice, I have read many threads where one person jumos on and getting rude and nasty and its spoils and intersting discussion for everyone else.

I started with some baby rice yesterday and after gobbling up 3 spoonfuls he cried againf or his bottle. I am going to leave for another week and offer it again. I am not trying to get him three meals a day or anything just felt the time was right for new textures and tastes.

I am intend to be led by feelings and instincts and also taking on board some the advice and suggestions made on this thread.

Thanks ladies

FB x

my typing is crap

Reading this with big interest in how times have changed or how guidelines have changed.

My 1st child I breastfed for three months when she suddenly refused the breast one day and refused to go back on it, then weaned her dead on 4 months (guidelines then)
2nd one was bf for 6 weeks but was a grumpy baby so thought I'd switch her to the bottle (didn't make any difference, she stayed grumpy lol) On hv advice, I weaned her at 3 months. She took to it within seconds and would scream for more once her little cube was finished. By the end of the first week she was on 3 meals a day and would only take a little milk.
baby no3 was the perfect breastfeeder and when he was 6 months it was all agreed that I had to introduce solids. He enjoyed the food but prefered to bf and did so til he was a year old

baby 1 & 2 have had no health problems.....he has had severe asthma since he was born!

I also remember the guidelines for putting a baby down to sleep. baby 1 & 2 we put down on their tummys. My mum always said babies should sleep on their side and these guidlines were wrong. Baby 2 hated sleeping on her tummy, so I asked hv if she could sleep on her back or side.....was told I must never do that, it's dangerous. Baby2 was born 4 days before Anne Diamonds baby!!!

Guidelines are just guidelines....and no doubt they will change again in the next few years

Er, bigbird, if your no.3 child had "severe asthma since he was born", how is his age at weaning of any relevance whatsoever?

If we are doing anecdotal then we have loads of allergies in my family. DS weaned at 4 months and had excema and gets asthma from time to time, rhinitis and cat allergy.

DD weaned at 6 months and shows no signs of any breathing problems or allergies.

What does it prove on it's own? Sod all.

Research is carried out over loads of babies.

For the billionth time the guidelines do not keep changing. The WHO have said 6 months for 11 years.

just sod's law that the one that is following todays guidlines isn't the healthy one...no need to get backs up.....he is also 13 so if he had been born 2 years later, the rules would have changed for him. 4th child is 11years 7 months and she too was weaned under the old guidlines

I don't understand why this bristled anyone, just saying what the rules were then, using back to sleep as an example aswell, my no2 had old and new guidlines for sleeping in the space of a few months

Wasn't trying to rile anyone

Could someone direct me to where the documentation is that says the guidlines changed 11 years ago please (this could be useful in my degree) as I can only find reference to it changing 2001/2002

THis country only recently changed their guidelines to fall in with long established WHO guidelines. My ds is 11 years old and I know the WHO said this around his birth time. I expect if you go on their website you'll find it.

I was simply pointing out that ancedotal evidence doesnt negate research.

I went on the WHO website last night and can only go back to the change in 2001/2002/2003

I can't find what the guidlines said before that

But back on topic, the WHO also recommends breastfeeding for over 2 years minimum but few people follow those guidelines. Most of the recommendations are for the developing world, where good knowledge and availability of nutrition can be scarce.

NEarly all babies were weaned pre 4 months from the 80's backwards, not saying it hasn't affected anyone but it certainly hasn't affected all.

It's quite disconcerting the way parents are berated for doing what they feel is best for their child. As I said before, when I asked for advice regarding my daughter preferring to sleep on her back, I was met with horror as the guidelines then were tummy sleeping only. A few months later, the guidlines were changed. I let her sleep how she wanted btw, after speaking to other parents.

The BLW isn't a new theory either. My babies had purees and mashed food, as soon as they were able to hold it, they had finger food. All mine were eating what we were eating by 7 months old, chopped not mashed or pureed

I feel sorry for new parents today, parent led parenting is actively discouraged

Most of the recommendations are not for developing countries. It's for all.

You'll find that quite a lot of people breastfeed over 2. The world average for weaning is 4 years old.

thanks for your sympathy, bigbird. by the way, nobody's saying that BLW is new. It's just finger food and milk by another, slightly wanky, name that none of us invented. Certainly it's the way my brother and sisters were weaned. i got the full-on paranoid mum puree treatment, because i was the eldest. that was thirty-odd years ago, of course, back in the day when new mums just went with the flow, didn't read anything, didn't talk to their midwives or family, didn't bother about anything and all babies raised themselves...
plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. (apols for MN's lack of accents).

bigbird, giving baby led weaning a name is just to give it some sort of formality, if you like. no one said it's something new. quite the opposite in fact. giving it a name, and having some sites about it shows new mums that they don't have to buy into the puree style of weaning which we are bombarded with in books, shops, 'bounty packs' etc etc.

as a new mum who is enjoying blw with my dd, i am constantly faced with surprise and shock that dd has never eaten a puree and that she eats food the same as i eat. giving it a name helps people see it as a viable method in itself, not just giving finger foods after purees or giving finger foods alongside purees. it's the whole concept of not weaning until baby can pick up food and eat it themself, and that they control their intake, it's not just about finger food.

(okay diz, it's slightly more than just finger food and milk, but not that much... )

another early weaner here
4 were at 3 months
2 were at 6 weeks (one on advice of consultant)
all are healthy, even though ds2 has sn
all normal weight

this was done back in the black and white days
except ds3 who is 6
and HV left me to it as there was no advice she could give me

flumpy if you feel your child is ready
speak to your HV
good luck
xxx

Just to clear up a point about how long 6 months weaning has been under discussion:

In the 90s WHO and UNICEF disagreed about what to recommend. Looking at the same evidence, UNICEF took the "safe" route and recommended 6 months; WHO took the "minimalist" route and said 6 months is best, but 4 months is probably OK.

This disagreement drove everybody crazy, especially people who worked for both organisations. Hence, in 2000, the decision to have a huge review of current knowledge to try and clarify the point.

This was done, and when more recent evidence was taken into account, it became clear that the evidence was in favour of 6 months. Accordingly, WHO changed their recommendation to purely 6 months, as it is now.

So just to summarise: WHO have recommended 6 months for many years, but until 2001, didn't actively discourage 4 months. They are now convinced that there is good evidence for 6 months.

THIS RECOMMENDATION IS FOR DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING WORLD BABIES.

(Sorry to shout, but if I hear the myth about developing world only one more time I will scream!)

I'm mystified about why people want to argue about this. We, as mums today, have access to better information about what's best for our babies than any other mums in the entire history of the human race.

Why would you want to ignore it?

thank you welliemum. we needed that. i also get fed up of hearing the developing world thing.

as if living in the industrialised world means the babies evolved differently.

Can I ask.... When did/does this information be given to the health professionals working closely with famillies? (health visitors, GPs, paedriatricians etc)

So the WHO and UNICEF had these guidlines in place but all the above didn't pass the message on?

LAst child born 95, last nephew born 97 and I know the advice (advice not rules) were 4-6 months weaning.

HAving now read the papers from WHO, It does state babies shouldn't be left longer than 6 months before weaning. So I ask the question I asked on previous thread.....Do you go by birthdate or due date especially in prem babies? And is it counted in weeks or calender months or all the above plus physical development? The daughter I weaned at 3 months, who never particularly enjoyed milk in a bottle but did adore food, was pulling up to standing and walking around the furniture at 6 months. She crawled and sat at 4.5 months and walked independantly at 7.5 months....so in theory had these been the guidlines then....I weaned her at the right stage or would/should I have waited til the 6 month mark. My son on the other hand didn't sit up or crawl til he was one and walked at 17 months, so would I have to wait til he could sit up?