12 week old now waking 2x a night again after settled period.... time to hit the baby rice?

[shrinkingsagpuss]

She was doing so well, waking once, and settling back to bed. Now she's up twice a night, and unsettled, she's looking for more food during day too..... seems a bit early to me, though her brother was on the rice at 14 weeks.

I dont nornally comment on weaning threads, but both my two were up in the night until 11 months old and then started sleeping through.

Although if I remember reightly with DS2 12-14 weeks was quite bad. I think that he just needed lots of cuddles and extra food at this stage.

The guide lines are milk only until 26 weeks and with DS2 we managed this, he has gone on to be a super eater and eats everything and anything. DS1 was weaned at 20 weeks are is now fussey and was harder as I had to puree for longer.

IMO you should just keep on with the milk and suffer the waking

conker, the guidance on milk only to 6 mths is not 'a fashion'. It's wrong to dismiss it in this way.

We now have a solid, robust, and in-depth scientific literature from all over the world that shows what works best, from a health perspective, in the majority of babies.

In addition, we now know more than we ever did about the physiology and developmental needs of infants. The concerns that babies would need more iron before 6 mths if not already on solids are no longer valid - and this was never a real concern in the developed world, anyway, where the nutrition of mothers was generally pretty good, and certainly normally sufficient to allow a baby to be born with his full 'complement' of iron stores.

Of course all babies don't hit the 'need' for solids at exactly the same date on the calendar. But 6 mths is a useful benchmark, and (more than your argument) is at least evidence-based. There is no evidence that any normal, healthy milk-drinking baby benefits from solids as young as 12-13 weeks, and no evidence that this is linked with sleeping through (in fact, the evidence we do have shows it makes no difference). Any apparent co-incidence is just that - a co-incidence.

In practice, babies will vary quite a lot in how quickly they move on to a range of foods, but round about 6 mths or so is a handy place to start.

If you are reading anything that says babies need 3 meals a day by this time, then your reading is out of date, quite simply. No doubt you could find all sorts of dubious stuff in books and leaflets - even among the ones printed recently.

It is tenuous to say the least to link the developmentally-normal mood changes of a baby (from being grumbly to smiley) to his diet - babies do this, and often they are a little more 'fussy' before a developmental change. Again, a co-incidence.

Most healthy babies will avoid obvious, serious effects of early solids, or get over any milder ones. But you can't argue that a baby of a young age actually needed solids, and to use the perfectly developmentally-normal behaviour of waking in the night as a 'sign' for the need of solids is to mislead people.

am surprised at how worked up everyone seems to get about this. thought it was only the bf/ff argument that got people so cross.

to clarify once again, i am not using any sort of sleeping through the night argument, and am also not telling anybody else that they should wean their babies at a particular time - just saying that you should go with what seems right for your baby.

I have read lots about the guidance, and everything i read says the recommendation is 6 months, but that you should consider each baby individually.

but i guess i will leave this thread here - i think i am doing the right thing for my baby, and am not going to start feeling guilty about it - i have spoken to plenty of people in rl whose opinions i trust.

i have no problem with going with instinct for most things, but instinct does not allow you to see inside your baby's gut, to see if it is ready for solids, as tiktok says it is not fashion, there is plenty of research posted to on here that backs it up

at the end of the day, you cannot harm by delaying solids, but introducing them too early can be detrimental

that is why people get cross

My dd was allergic to formula, tomatoes, oranges... and got bad excema round her mouth and on her body when I weaned her at 4 months ( as was recommended at the time).
I don't know for certain if it was because she was too young for all those things, but if I had another baby I would definitely wait till six months.

As tik-tok says, there is scientific evidence that waiting is better.

i u7nderstand that you have a personal reason to be very anti early weaning, but whether you like the argument or not, its true that earlier weaning happened when we were all babies, and there are many many other reasons for the rise in allergies.

i presume that none of you use glade plug ins, air freshener or central heating?

Please do not turn this into a fight, the OP was looking for guidence and advice, or she would not have posted.

There is so much information out there and it changes so often.

I am also sure that no one would intentionally harm their child - or I hope they wouldnt

No one is worked up, conker! I don't really mind what people do with their own kids when it comes to solids. I do get mildly irritated when people talk about the guidance as a 'fashion' , bring in their own out of date dads to bolster their argument, persist in using the weight of a baby to illustrate readiness for solids, point to out of date literature as an argument....

I don't think allergies have generally much to do with it either (unless you're talking about very young babies) - early weaning may affect susceptibility to allergy in a very few babies, but mostly, the argument is just a question of what has been shown to be good nutrition.

(I addressed the point about sleeping because it was in the OP's post).

that sounds worked up to me tiktok.

i have never heard that the argument is about good nutrition.

and i'd trust my dad's judgement a million times more than somebody whob has never met me or my baby

13 weeks is very early to wean IMO. Its not like quibbling over 23/26 weeks.

The best nutrition for a baby is breastmilk or an appropriate substitute. FWIW my dd was born as the guidelines were being changed, and was given solids from 24 weeks. So I accept the need for using your intuition about what is right for your baby, but 13 weeks is not recommended even by the previous guidelines.

i know that stripeymama - i'm not advocating that everyone should do that by any means. i do still think it was right for ds though.

You'd trust a GP's opinion over the facts, conkertree?

The facts: evidence is growing that not only do babies not need solids before 6 months, but that early solids can adversely affect their immunity.

Will post an example link as soon as able.

If you look for proof you will look forever - the ideal studies have not been done and for ethical reasons cannot be done. But the evidence is all pointing on one direction: that babies are being weaned too early.

and brestmilk is still his main form of nutrition and will remain so for the forseeable future.

he gets a little bit of baby rice or a little bit of banana at lunch or dinner, after a bf. he laps it up and looks for more usually but if he is not interested, i dont give him any.

if its about nutrition rather than allergies, then what is the difference between when we were weaned (i was weaned at about 10 weeks) and now?

sorry - breast milk

ok so its now about immunity. oh well - still happy to take a gps advice thanks.

No disrespect whatsoever to your Dad, conker - in fact, I have a great respect for GPs.

But you might want to reflect that GPs are not trained either in infant nutrition or in epidemiology (research methodology), and have no formal system for updating their knowledge on feeding guidelines.

They're busy, they have know a lot about other things and this is not their area of expertise.

I would not regard the opinion of a GP on this matter as authoritative - and I don't need to, I read the literature at source.

thats fine - i'm not asking anyone else to take my dad's opinion for anything - he doesnt know any of your babies and its quite an individual decision. you also dont know my dad and you dont know what he does or doesnt know, so I think its a little silly to turn this thread into an attack on my dad's knowledge.

well done on your extensive research though.

i will continue doing what i (and those whose opinions i trust) think is best for my baby, including reading the guidelines, and good luck to you all making your own decision.

My dad thinks that I should have stopped all breastfeeding when DD was about 9 months, rather than letting her continue to bf 2-3 times a day.

Should I take his advice?

Of course, he knows your baby better than we do!!

flethc...meet up therad.. please look >> x

Thank goodness for you TIKTOK! Voice of sense and reason again

No need to get angry, conker - no-one's attacking your dad.

But your argument on this thread is that you trust your dad's advice above, say, the advice of the WHO's expert committee, and you point out a couple of times that your dad is a GP with the clear implication that this carries a lot of weight with you.

That's what I'm responding to. It's not personal.

You've obviously made your mind up, but there's no need to be sneery about the literature or those of us who've read it. There's some good work going on and although it's frustrating not to have definite answers yet, a picture is beginning to emerge which challenges the traditional ideas of weaning.

Now I did run away from this htread - having started it - looking for a balanced view, but not getting one. It only seems to have got worse, and I need to support Conkertree here.

My DS was weaned from 14 weeks. He was starving. He only had a bit of baby rice (wallpaper paste maybe, but made with yummy breast milk) til he was 16 weeks, then we started on fruit and veg.

He has no allergies. He has one of the best immune systems of all my friends children, he is rarely ill. He has no problems with his bowels. He happily lives on veg and fruit.

Weaning hm early gave us back our sleep, and his, and we were all happier for it. Happy parents make happy milk, makes happy babies.

Research findings change over the years. My Mother was advised to B/F for 5 mins from each side only. How did she ever raise 4 healthy children? We will never know? Fashions change, research often seems to reflect the current social trends (conveniently)

When my mum was born, she was born at home pre-nhs, it was safe. Then suddenly it became the right thing to do to have babies in hospital because a trend in the increase in surviving babies was attributed to homebirths being dangerous and hospital safe. We now are looking at a different trend. It doesn't make it right or wrong, just different.

in 10 yrs time, the WHO may have changed their advise - does that mena we will have done the "wrong" thing (I see we.... I'm not sticking to it... never mind)?

The saddest thing about Mumsnet, which a few of us seem to be finding, is that innocent questions, or people sharing experiences, often get shouted down by the pro-"whatever" group. I looked for support or advice, expecting there to be some others like me. There are - but they are so ferociously shouted down they don't post.

Rant over. .... and breathe....