Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

It's not rocket science - "it may cause harm to wean early, it does no harm to leave it till 6m" - WHY do people still want to shovel baby rice in at 12 weeks (or earlier)?

799 replies

hunkermunker · 07/04/2007 22:50

I have come up with some ideas as to why people wean early:

they have competitive baby syndrome and are annoyed someone else's baby rolled first, so they want to get theirs onto steak and chips via baby rice and one fruit or veg a week for months

Well, an idea. Any more?

OP posts:
AitchTwoOh · 08/04/2007 01:03

nev-aaah. you should have bought the paper. in scotland. expat saw it...

bigbird2003 · 08/04/2007 01:15

Where have I been snippy? I have said that waiting is the ideal but I am not convinced weaning at 5 months will be detrimental

I came here as this is the only place that mentions the food is fun and open gut theory so vehemently. I wanted to know where it came from as I can't find the research that backs it up

I work daily with paeds and professors and I'm sorry, they don't support these theories. This is why I am writing my thesis, to get how word of mouth and new theories come through parents in the most part, especially since the rise of internet use, the demise of extended famillies and now the fasing out of HV's

The WHO does give a guideline and says all babies should be weaned by 8 months. They also (rightly imo) want the ideal of all babies BF for the full 6 months and exclusive BF is there ultimate aim

I don't know you have taken exception to me, I haven't been rude and I have taken all the help given to me and been grateful

I do have two heads on, one in work mode and one in parent mode and that is why I can see both sides of the dilema

welliemum · 08/04/2007 01:21

"food is fun" isn't a theory though - it's a slogan.

Less catchily, you could say that babies are well adapted to get the majority of their nutrition from milk in the first year.

That isn't a theory either though - it's just an observation.

There's no study you can point to that "proves" it, because such a study would be unethical.

Tricky - but there it is.

Original poster
hunkermunker · 08/04/2007 01:26

There are LOADS of places that say milk should be the main nutrition for babies till a year - that's the same as saying food for fun till one, isn't it? That's what I took it to mean

OP posts:
AitchTwoOh · 08/04/2007 01:29

wellie and hunker, this was explained a number of times on the other thread. hence the fact that i thought it snippy of bigbird to bring it onto a new thread and present it as if it had somehow been skirted.

Original poster
hunkermunker · 08/04/2007 01:31

Ah, right. I would also like to say I'm NOT talking about weaning at 5 months, I'm talking about weaning at 12 weeks or younger, which has been mentioned on this site in the not too distant past.

There are women who still think they'll do it, whether their baby's ready or not, showing any signs or not, whatever - for absolutely no reasons, as far as I can tell.

OP posts:
bigbird2003 · 08/04/2007 01:34

But it is spoken on here as pure fact and mums are being berated at times for not accepting these theories

I am concerned that now HVs will soon be a thing of the past, the majority of parents will only get their information through word of mouth, if they have people to talk to

Some babies will thrive on BM alone for a long time (I had one that did) I also had one that stopped drinking milk at 6 months old, only had normal food and water to drink, she got dairy products from yoghurts and cheese. She was also hospitalised with dehydration when she suddenly refused to BF and I was told by a breastfeeding councillor to persevere as 'everyone can breastfeed. My next BFC told me that, no actually sometimes it does happen and not everyone can bf

I also think the optimum comes from the BF side and practises should be different for FF babies (drinking milk not weaning)

It's things being stated as researched facts that I'm concerned about when some of them are just theories (not the waiting til 6 months for solid foods to clarify)

welliemum · 08/04/2007 01:36

Oh, should have saved my [virtual] breath then!

As to the OP, I can understand being defensive about a decision made in the past. It's horrible to feel you may not have done the ideal thing.

But I don't understand the future weaners who just want to do it no matter what.

And the "it's only research" attitude presses all my buttons

AitchTwoOh · 08/04/2007 01:36

hunker, both of us, further down the thread, acknowledged that if babies self-feed earlier than they're likely good to go - not that that was noted by any of the more spittle-flecked contributors...

bigbird2003 · 08/04/2007 01:37

And yes kellymom has been mentioned to me, but I was looking for other sources. Most of the links on there just take you to other kellymom pages not the actual research

welliemum · 08/04/2007 01:42

I think bigbird that you're interpreting the "food is fun" thing as a rule - I don't see anyone saying this.

Where it's usually trotted out in MN discussions, is when someone is fretting that their baby won't take many solids, ie it's a way of reminding them that milk is fine, don't stress about it.

There is such a lack of trust in milk - especially breastmilk - that little slogans like this are very useful for reminding people that solid intake under one isn't a big worry.

And the nutritional science underpinning that is quite robust by the way.

AitchTwoOh · 08/04/2007 01:43

well bigbird, there's where we disagree. i just don't think it is spoken about as 'pure fact' at all. i think it's abundantly clear that something like Food is Fun Until One is a saying or a slogan, however, given that is chimes with WHO guidelines i don't think it's harmful in the slightest. i'm rather surprised that you were confused on this matter, tbh.
i actually think that the vast majority of people on MN are very careful to qualify their advice as being derived from the personal, except when quoting from or linking to research.

tiggyhop · 08/04/2007 01:48

Can someone tell me why the guidelines relate to AGE rather than size/weight of the baby? One six month old baby can be very very different from another. One 20 lb baby is likely to be quite similar to another 20lb baby?

welliemum · 08/04/2007 01:49

bigbird, another suggestion - try googling PubMed (links to PubMed don't always work or I'd link it for you).

In the top window you can add search terms, and it'll throw up medical publications on that topic. You can usually read the abstracts online, but might need access to a library to read the whole article.

There's a bit of an art to searching as the database is so big, but it's worth having a go if there's something specific you want to look for.

AitchTwoOh · 08/04/2007 01:52

is that true? wouldn't a 20lb 4 month-old be very different from a 20lb 10-month-old in terms of capabilities? the 10-monther might be a skinny walker but the 4 monther just a big blob of chubba. does weight have a bearing on gut maturity?

welliemum · 08/04/2007 01:52

Tiggy, no, I think that's unlikely.

Weight is a function of a baby's height, muscle mass, amount of fat etc - but has nothing to do with the maturity of the gut which is crucial.

Age is a better measure of that, even though babies probably mature at different rates in this as in all things.

AitchTwoOh · 08/04/2007 01:52

anyway, night night all, happy easter.

welliemum · 08/04/2007 01:54
tiggyhop · 08/04/2007 01:55

I do follow that, thanks.

Incidentally I was amazed that the guidelines changed from 4 months with DS1 to 6 months with DS 2 when they were only 16 months apart...mind you most of that period is a blur...

welliemum · 08/04/2007 02:00

Tiggy, I need to go actually, but in brief: the sudden change in government guidelines in the UK was political (I think discussed earlier in this thread but the thread is LONG!).

The research and advice behind it has been chuntering along for years - it just took a long time for the guidelines to catch up.

Peridot30 · 08/04/2007 02:09

FFS HUNKER i fed both my children earlier than this as they were HUNGRY!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing to do with government guidelines it was to do with what i thought was best for my child.

Who cares about the mums army that you seem to lead.?????????

welliemum · 08/04/2007 05:16

How did you know that they needed food rather than extra milk?

That's not a rhetorical question by the way, it's a question question - am interested in how you made the decision.

Wallace · 08/04/2007 07:34

Haven't read the whole thread.

When i asked one HV she said 4 to 6 months.
The other HV said 6 months and added "At least if we say 6 months people might at least wait til after 4 months"
Our red book says 3 to 4 months

So HV are to blame! Nobody I speak to in RL knows that the guidlines are are 6 months.

babygrand · 08/04/2007 07:42

Is this just another announcement to make us feel guilty if we did it differently in our day? Everyone I knew did weaning at 3 months so, knowing nothing about kids, I just did what they did. When I read something like this I feel guilty and wonder what damage I've done (although they seem OK?)

noddyholder · 08/04/2007 07:47

These threads are only ever started to get everyone going.This topic has been thrashed out on here repeatedly always with the same conclusions and arguments.It always upsets someone and makes others feel guilty/smug so why keep re hashing it?We are none of us perfect and what would happen if the guidelines suddenly became 1 yr rather than 6 months?