Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

Why are people so keen to wean their babies before six months?

115 replies

bluejelly · 19/11/2007 17:05

I just wondered, don't want to start a row. It's just it comes up all the time, and I know it's been a while since my dd was that age, but I never remember it being something I was keen to get started.

OP posts:

JeremyVile · 19/11/2007 17:09

Because they feel that it is appropriate for their babies.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

PestoMonster · 19/11/2007 17:09

I think for some people it's the belief that once their babies are eating solids, they won't be so 'hungry' and might therefore sleep better at night. Well, that's what my friend is hoping for anyway.

mazzystar · 19/11/2007 17:10

because they are bored
because they have been nagged mercilesslessly by uninformed mothers-in-law or worse, healthcare professionals
because they are desperately sleep-deprived and are clutching at straws
because they haven't realised how very very tedious pureeing mush, and wiping it up can be
because they haven't read aitch's blog

take yer pick

CountessDracula · 19/11/2007 17:12

I can't remember you know
she is only 5!

I just remember the book said when they are 4 months start giving them baby rice

so i did

(this was before mn)

Actually I think I waited til 4.5 months

dooley1 · 19/11/2007 17:13

agree with because they are bored, I always thought the next stage would be much more exciting than the one I was in (and it never was)
Also the thinking it will help with the sleeping is a biggie

Original poster

bluejelly · 19/11/2007 17:15

LOL at the next stage seeming to be more exciting than the one they are in.

Maybe it's cos I went back to work ( v reluctantly) when my dd was 4 months so in a way I had other things to stress about!

OP posts:

sweetkitty · 19/11/2007 17:15

I think a lot of it is to try and say that their baby is more developed than others i.e. he was having food at 9 weeks old as he was looking at our food and milk wasn't satifying him anymore. Some people think the quicker their babies are on food the more advanced they are.

SenoraPostrophe · 19/11/2007 17:16

because babies start to feed more and more frequently at about 4 months, and in particular, because they wake for a feed more at night. weaning doesn't help that initially, but it does help after the first couple of weeks.

If i had known how thin the evidence against weaning at 4 months was 10 months ago, I'd have been boiling that ground rice faster than you could say world health organisation.

SenoraPostrophe · 19/11/2007 17:17

I don't think many people do it out of a sense of competetiveness though.

noddyholder · 19/11/2007 17:19

I did it because people around me said it would help with sleeping and I was desperate.

theUrbanDryad · 19/11/2007 17:19

i think a large part of it is because all the first stage baby food stuff has "From 4 months" written on it, and so people think, "Well if it wasn't advised 'they' wouldn't be allowed to write it, would they?"

but that's a whole different rant...

JeremyVile · 19/11/2007 17:20

Also because we are (or should be) encouraged to follow guidelines with some flexibility to allow for individual needs/circumstances.
So, the mother who judges that her baby is ready for solids before 6 months(rather than the one who listens to her neighbour who insists theres some magic 4 month weaaning window) is not going against some strict guideline (as seems to be suggested) she is actually following the guidelines.
(I say that as someone who rigidly refused to give solids before 6 months. I have now uncorked my arse).

TheMadHouse · 19/11/2007 17:21

I think that for people with their first baby it is because it is an exciting stage, although TBH I was dreading weaning DS1.

also I think there is a great amount of peer pressure in it and the competative mummy thing going on or mummyzillas as RED called them this month

theUrbanDryad · 19/11/2007 17:22

JV - i know what you mean, but it seems to me, that the mother who weans at 16 weeks is praised for recognising her baby's individual needs, and interpreting the guidelines appropriately, whereas i was made to feel like a freak for waiting till 7.5 months because ds just wasn't ready.

that could have just been the clinics/baby groups i went to though - they are pretty crappy.

Niecie · 19/11/2007 17:23

Because only 5 years ago the norm and advice was 4 months. If you have a child who is older than 5 when you have another baby and you don't bother with HV you might very well not know about the change in advice. Even if you did you might well think, if it was good enough for the older child it is good enough for the younger one. That wasn't how it was with me but some people don't research things to death like I do!

MrsBadger · 19/11/2007 17:26

[rant alert]

because it's a 'developmental milestone' we, not the child, control
we can't make them sit up / crawl / walk / talk earlier
but we can spoon slop into them whenever we feel like it

[rant over]

wannaBe · 19/11/2007 17:27

because every baby is different. And because the guideline is something that has changed in our babies? lifetimes. For some, when they had their first baby, the guideline was for weening at 4 months, and then the guidelines changed between babies.

I weened my ds at 16 weeks, not because there was a magic window, but because he was starving. And I wasn?t sleep deprived ? he slept through (11-7) from 9 weeks. But he was hungry and refusing milk. So I gave him a teaspoon of baby rice and never looked back because he absolutely thrived on it. The guideline then was 4 months, but even if it had been 6 months there?s no way I could have held out until then. But having said that, my ds was bottlefed so I believe that does make a difference?

And tbh guidelines are for ever changing, so there's probably a very real possibility that in 5 years they'll be back at 4 months.

talktothebees · 19/11/2007 17:29

erm, if this is a follow on from my post I'll make it clear again that I have no interest in weaning my DD early I just wanted to know whether letting her explore her interest in the food before 26 weeks was potentially harmful.

And yes the reason I asked that question here was because I know that if I went to my HVs they would jump on the 'she's interested in what we're putting in our mouths' and the fact she's a big lass and pressurise me into shovelling purees into her now. Even my usually sensible HV muttered soemthing about not waiting til 26 weeks because I'd be storing up problems for us. Seriously I haven't met a single HV who doesn't undermine the 26 week message.

So I think you get the same question again and again because it's hard with a PFB to keep your strength against a tide of so-called experts telling you you're doing it all wrong.

We ask here because the official support services are either useless or actively harmful.

Original poster

bluejelly · 19/11/2007 17:29

at Mrs Badger.

OP posts:

JeremyVile · 19/11/2007 17:30

UD - There are plenty of people who are scathing about giving solids before 6 months (on some threads in active convos right now for example).

I think it's all just proof that parents dont like to see other parents doing something different to them, or not trusting that their choices have been thought through logically.

You, no doubt, know that you gave solids when it was suitable for your child.

Seems to be that once you become a parent you cant do right for doing wrong in someone or others eyes.

Original poster

bluejelly · 19/11/2007 17:32

talktothebees
I promise it wasn't aimed at you at all, I just see the question coming up again and again and I wondered why.

As I think I said on your thread, I weaned my dd at 4 months because it was the advice at the time. But because of her multiple allergies ( thankfully now all grown out of) I would definitely wait if I had another baby.

But it really wasn't any reflection on your post which was perfectly justified!

OP posts:

theUrbanDryad · 19/11/2007 17:32

amen to that JV

wannaBe · 19/11/2007 17:36

I do really resent the inference from some that parents that ween at six months are perfect because they have followed the guidelines, but those that ween before obviously have no idea what they're doing and don't have the best interests of their babies at heart.

babies were weened from 4 months up until 4 years ago. IT's not something that has changed and changed back - it was always the case. And yet alergies are ever increasing - I somehow don't think that it has anything to do with early weening. In fact there is a study going on atm to do with introducing nuts to babies much earlier because the belief now is that by leaving it too late babies are more likely to develop alergy to nuts...

talktothebees · 19/11/2007 17:39

Oh no I wasn't taking it personally although DP tells me I often give that impression

Seriously I worried about asking the question again but mnetters were the only people I dared ask because the HVs would tell me to crack open the baby rice and the gp would just refer me to the HVs.

Mercy · 19/11/2007 17:40

Same as Niecie - but I didn't do any research, it just didn't occur to me that anything would have changed in the last couple of years or so.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5