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)?

[hunkermunker]

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?

Very interesting that, especially the idea that if one could somehow prevent the increased permeability, one could prevent the disease.

Well, the HIV study would fit with that, as the most likely mechanism for their findings is that the early introduction of solids damages the gut wall in some way, thus making it easier for the virus to gain access.

Another thing which struck me is the comment in the Gut article about hydrolysed diet being better than normal diet (in rats) - which roughly parallels the finding in this study that mixing breast and formula (ie hydrolysed) feeding was not as good as exclusive breastfeeding, but was better than solids.

All a bit tenuous, I admit!

oooh, lots of lovely reading to do over the next few days... thanks gess and wellie.

Havne't read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating anyone but I thought it was 6 mobnths for BF babies and 4 months for FF babies.

Is it 6 months across the board now?

(see, in the niciest possible way we don't all know what the right way)

LTH - at least 6 months for ALL babies (WHo guidelines).
It is confusing though, isn't it?

Thanks sassy, I wonder if DS4 will let me wait until 7 months because we're camping in july and the thought of making his food in a tent isn't very appealing.

my friend waited 'til 7 months for the same reason, everyone was fine. she just started giving bits of fruit and bread/rice cakes, but never paid any attention to 'weaning' until she got home from her hols.

I suppose I could end up being an unintentional BLWer....

that's exactly what happened to my friend!

IMO, i think 6 months is too long to wait. My DS was crawling at 5 months (i know, nightmare) and he needed solid food for the energy.

But, that's my opinion. I want to know why they keep changing it.

jhyesmum - yes I think we are all agreed that four months will do no harm as long as you don't feed them fruit shoots and sausage rolls

Am waiting expectantly for the first pantomime like: 'oh no it isn't'

We started at four and a half months, on baby rice (I like it, she likes it and it's less likely to shoot out of her nose than peas). We're now on a range of foods including chicken, as of today.

BTW I reckon that each time someone raises the subject more mums go 'well I'm going to wean early just to spite those sanctimonious PITA's?'

Sanctimonious. Just the word I have been looking for

uh oh, look who has come back

"yes I think we are all agreed that four months will do no harm as long as you don't feed them fruit shoots and sausage rolls"

What? What do you think this thread is about?

F&Z - i think you'd be surprised!!!

my ds was crawling at 6 mths and was fully breastfed without solids til 7 mths
He had no shortage of energy...
Not interested in solids at all and this was 13 yrs ago when advice was 4 mths.
He was on one solid meal a day (porridge and fruit) until 9 mths when he was walking
Then he started taking an interest.

Why does anyone think a few teaspoons of baby rice will make that much difference to their baby? Esp re energy - head to head quantity wise milk be it fm or bm provides far more calories and energy

I was amongst the last in my large mother & baby group to start weaning - there were lots of reasons given for the early starts, large and hungry baby, waking at night etc. But within this group of mothers, it really was just competition.

haven't read thread (daren't)

but i think sometimes it's true - and often the result of an attitude of "well, my baby's so big (and therefore healthy) that he needs food earlier than yours"

HUNKER WHY ON EARTH DO YOU CARE?

Because people think, that nohting will happen to their Baby, of course these bad things only happen to other Baby's surely...
sigh....I really do NOT see the urgency in weaning!
Also, yes, teh DOH, etc...have only recently changed their advice, but NOT because they didn't agree with teh WHO but because they had to wait for maternity laws to change...that is pretty sad stuff!
Also, even in the UK the advice is not new at all...my ms is almost 4 1/2 years old now, and was weaned at 6+ month...and bf'ed until then. And I was informed that even when my es was born (he will be 11 years old this summer) the WHO already adviced the 6 month weaning...only back then I was not as easily able toresearch things like that and went by what I was adviced by my crappy Health Visitors...sigh...!

I mean, of course there are other reasons for things to go wrong, but WHY take the risk in teh first place...which ever that might be...apparnelty mothers love their Baby's...but then, soemone that weans early is just as bad as a mother that feeds her child crap and lets them get severely obese...and yes, that is child abuse in my books, too!

I love being called sanctimonious because I mind about babies being healthy.

Love it.

NSPCC? Sanctimonious cunts. Who do they think they are, trying to tell people not to beat their children?

Hunker = NSPCC = delusions of grandeur?