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?

I've read 6 months Cam, not 4.

does anyone know the risk other than saying "there are risks" Are these minute risks? Are they signifucant risks?

well i think hunker did rather acknowledge that earlier, cam. but it's risk management, innit?

Well there's a lot of info around.

risk?

CAM if you read something that said 4-6 months, it wasnt 'recent' research

Think the advice changed while I was PG first time round, which was 2003.

Prove it vvv

cause and effect.
AFAYK there was no effect on you at the moment, so therefore there is no cause and effect.
just a ridiculous argument.
OK my dh was weaned at 6 weeks. and he now has problems with his digestion/obesity and chronic eczema.
as does his sister, who was weaned at the same time.
so therefore QED early weaning CAUSES digestive problems/obesity/chronic eczema.
are you convinced?

fgs, zookeeper. why don't you go off and reserach it then, see what you come up with? if it's infinitesimally small then that must be okay, presumably. (so long as it's not your child with crohns, shitting blood and puking agonisingly every day).

these little sweethearts rely on us to look after their wellbeing, to make sure they are safe from harm. i could never do something that might cause irreparable damage to someone i love. it makes me feel sick to even think about it

because there are risks in almost everything we will ever do with our children - surely the thing is to assess what the risk is and the liklihood of harm before weighing up whether or not to go ahead.

I think there has already been a link to the Weaning Research, CAM, so i dont think I need to redress it again on here.

Do ask if there is anything you dont understand on there though.

But Zoo even if the risks were low, would you risk it as it isn't necessary? Weaning doesn't need to be starte at 4 months so why risk it even if the risk are low. I liken it to russian roulette but with more bullets, would you take that risk?

but surely we weigh up the risks and benefits.
and what are the benefits of weaning early?

Zookeeper, if you're weighing up pros and cons though, what pro are you seeing for weaning at 4 months?

Off to bed, night one and all. Happy Easter ladies.

have you read the title of the thread, zookeeper?

Okay Zookeeper, so if you have a set of scales, and on one side, it is that there is some risk, however infinitessimal if you wean early of developing problems, and on the other side, there is no research that has found that weaning late causes any risk - which do you think is the best choice?

Do something, or do nothing? Surely easier and safer to do nothing, no? Not rocket science, as Hunker says.

it depends - if the risk is tiny then I would weigh it against other risks, so in Nightynight's case I would weigh it aginst the risk to the baby of having an exhausted overwraught mother.

Night Hunie.

why are you being so aggressive VVV?

No its you who doesn't understand vvv, I meant prove what I have read isn't recent.

What research says babies sleep better having been weaned Zookeeper?

Surely that is just making an exhausted, overwraught mother more hassled with mixing up babypaste?

not to say patronising?