WILL I BE SHOT AT DAWN!

[mish2]

I have read all the advice on weaning and know all what goes with it, i weaned my dd at 14 weeks 4 yrs ago ad she is fit and well and healthy. My dds is 15 weeks and 15lb and does not take his milk well, he fights each feed and i have tried everything, if left to his own devises he will take anyhting from 3 -7 oz per feed but generally only the 7 if forced - averaging about 28oz in a 24 hr period with one or 2 night wakings. He is a happy chappy until feeding and it has become so stressful that yesterday after a 11am fight and condecding at 2 oz i made up some baby rice and offered him it - he loved it and was like a bird. Should i cont today and until 17 weeks with just baby rice at one feed or should i just go for it? I am taking to get weighed tomo. I expect some of you will be quite alarmed at starting to wean early but you havent been fighting my son for 15 weeks!

[lissielou]

once again a mum is being villified for daring to listen to her own instincts and babies needs. isnt it more important that both mum and baby are healthy and happy than following guidelines that change every 3y? how do all the 6m weaners who preach about the dangers of early weaning explain the sudden rise in intolerances in young children?

[colditz]

Ok. It's going to be one of those threads, isn't it.

*I do not, and will never, care when someone else weans.

*I do not, and will never, care whether someone else breastfeeds.

*BUT I do like to shout up when I think people are making an ill informed choice, and hopefully give them the facts as far as I know.

[colditz]

If people choose to ignore the facts when they have possession of them, that is on their own head. But I cannot in clear conscience sit in silence when someone has been blatently lied to by someone they trust to know what they are doing.

[Chillout]

lissielou lissielou, I so agree with you
it seems to me that weaning
is becoming so demeaning
can't we all instead
keep our thoughts within our heads
its surely all been posted
whether pureed, mashed or toasted

I'm fed up with making a meal of making a meal.

[hunkerlemonandsugarmunker]

Lissie, you weaned your DS at 8 weeks, iirc.

I explain the rise in intolerances by all manner of things - processed foods, environmental chemicals, etc, etc.

There is published, peer-reviewed research that says six months is the earliest you should wean, and that you may well do harm by weaning earlier.

Yes, a mum knows her baby best, but that's for things like "how he likes to be cuddled" and "what his favourite toy is" not "his gut is now closed enough to accept solid food" unless rudimentary dissection is practised at some weaning classes?

[hunkerlemonandsugarmunker]

AND the guidelines don't change every three years.

[QueenVictoria]

the 13% was for still feeding at 9 months.

The latest Infant Feeding Survey has been completed, but not all results are out. The general trend for b/feeding has increased, so I would imagine that applies to prevalence and duration, but, we will see in the next few months when the full results are published i guess.

[hunkerlemonandsugarmunker]

QV! Why have you dropped the VVV?

[QueenVictoria]

For the 100 years ago MN thread....thought it appropriate

Cant be arsed to change it back just yet.....

[hunkerlemonandsugarmunker]

I rather like it

[bigbird2003]

But what i don't get is......for at least the last 40 years (bar the last 5 or so) babies were weaned under 6 months. Why when I was at school was I the only child I knew that had asthma, hayfever and excema? Why was my brother the only person I knew, other than my cousin that had a fatal allergy to nuts and fish? These things are much more prevalent now.

The majority of adults today were weaned well under 6 months, they are not all keeling over

The reasons for many of our ills is down to poor diet and lack of exercise in adulthood. Child obesity comes from uneducated parenting (twizzlers and chips anyone?)

The guidlines do change regularly (back to sleep, new weaning etc) Ask any parent of teens or young adults.

Would love to see what is said when some of you get further down the line and have seen the changes that occur over your childs lifetimes

[QueenVictoria]

40 years is barely a blink over the space of many thousands of years of weaning.

I dont understand why you are reluctant to take on board new findings and research. Really I dont.

What people were doing 40 years or so ago was not done with much thought or research. It was more in line with convenience. It certainly wasnt going with the flow nad trusting instincts. It was medicalising of many aspects of pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing.

Look at 30 or so years ago, when it was vital to have an enema, a shower, and a full shave before you could deliver your baby - flat on your back in stirrups. That was done in the interests of hygiene, and "ease" of delivery for the mws. Things change. More often for the better in these things. IMO.

[bigbird2003]

That's my point, over 1000's of years of weaning, before books, websites, organisations and guidelines parents followed their instincts. Guidelines are making it all more medicalised. I said for at least 40 years as that is my lifetime

I hate the way women are made to feel guilty over every aspect of their lives. The OP has followed her instincts, does she deserve hostility and being berated?

My point is over time things change, guidelines change, but the wonder of a baby doesn't. Some will be forward and do things to confound the experts, some will follow the average and some will lag behind, who is to say their genetic make up isn't doing the same?

Like I said, I had a baby that was streets ahead in her physical, verbal and cognitive abilities....whose to say she wasn't also streets ahead in her gut development? Can anyone say that every baby has a gut development, ready for solids at exactly 6 months from birth?

Guidlelines are just a rough estimate. I have read extensive research and they were mainly put in place to stop developing countries buying into the big business of mass made milks and baby foods and getting it drastically wrong. To some parts of the third world, it was a status thing to give formula for eg, but as it was so expensive, they diluted it more than is safe. The health organisations had to bring advice in to turn it around and have the poorer countries get back to BF

Like I said, how many follow the guideline to BF for at least 2 years? Not many and those that do are not encouraged. Why is weaning so different??

And I don't understand why the health profs of this country are treated as idiots when they dare to go against the guidelines. I'd much rather take my advice from a paed, nurse, GP or HV than some mums on the internet

[colditz]

If the OP didn't care what mums on the internet had to say, she wouldn't have posted, I'm sure.

[QueenVictoria]

Well, the problem is that you have companies quite happy to press the 'benefits' of formula, and jar/weaning foods. It is so commercialised. If you look at the statistics on b/feeding there is a clear correlation between the amount of women from 'better backgrounds' breastfeeding for longer - or even attempting it in the first place.

Those who didnt go on to further education, come from a 'lesser' social background were less likely to even attempt b/feeding, or continue with it past 2 weeks.

This is not about instincts. It's about education over and above commercialisation that seems to sway the choice of those who are less in the know. Clearly it is not about instinct at all. It's about your environment and what you see/live. Like it or not - thats what the stats show from the same place you got your other information from.

The issue with weaning and not having books etc telling you what to do - well, doubtless babies were b/fed for much longer, and not stopped at a fixed date etc. Weaning was much slower - there were no blenders or such like. Families brought up their children in the manner that the rest of the family did - in the days when families lived together.

It is just not like that these days.

And, to suggest that people should ignore totally the advice of some mums on an internet forum, removes the necessity of them being here in the first place, surely?

[QueenVictoria]

And, I dont think the OP was berated at all.

[FrannyandZooey]

Well, apart from me threatening her with a shot gun

[QueenVictoria]

I was glossing over that....it was more of a suggestion, than a threat...

[FrannyandZooey]

yes I don't think it would stand up in a court of law

[oops]

Message withdrawn

[QueenVictoria]

No, it wouldnt stand up. But, you would be prime suspect should something happen, unexpectedly with a shotgun, to mish

[amelia02]

The DOH guidelines someone did a link to earlier does say that if it is felt your baby is ready from 4 months you should be supported (item 10.1). Just reading the earlier bits on this and am new here. Are people usually this horrible to eachother on mumsnet? Not sure I would ask for help unless feeling strong and a lot less postnatal than right now for fear of the mumsnet wrath.

[LaDiDaDi]

I take a similar view to Aitch in that I think that there are likely to be other developmental milestones which are associated with the gut being ready to digest solid foods.

I think that it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that there would be an external marker of gut readiness and this would probably be sitting up and being able to reach out for foods.

On the other hand I can see the pov of those who argue that children make progress at different rates in different developmental areas and so gut physiology in one child may lag behind or be much faster than say gross motor skills.

As I can't imagine that ethical clearance would be granted for a study which proposed to endoscope all otherwise healthy babies at weekly intervals from 4 months to say 7 months and compare gut maturity with other developmental milestones I think that we have to look at the best available research which strongly suggests that it is safest to wait until 6 months.

I, personally, have nothing against mums who choose to wean earlier and it may be appropriate for their baby BUT it is not the safest option and I don't see how anyone can think that it is.

[kiskidee]

the document still says that but it contradicts other documents too also by the gov't, like the second one i also posted. it also contradicts all the other organisations listed below.

in the case of the op, not drinking X amount of milk in a day is NOT a reason to start weaning.

in a friend's experience, her hv convinced her to stop bf at 4 months because her dd was 'too thin' and maybe formula would get her to put on weight.

she did that but her dd still only drank less milk than was expected by the guidelines and remained thin.

her dd is now 3, on the 95% for height but still thin! this dd has a tall and lanky dad so no surprise there ..... and still eats little and often for her height!