Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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

i am a Bad Person. today i ahve given my 20 week old food. and it's pureed.

59 replies

TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 12:42

i was going to wait

i was going to try blw

but am too exhausted and fed up

ds2 (5mo next week) is having nights from hell. hence so am i. last night he managed no more thna an hour at a time between midnight and 6am

gp has seen him - nothing obviously wrong

i could have stuck it out but i am like a zombie. i haven't slept properly since he was born and the last few nights have been truly horrendous

i know a bit o pureed pear is going to makje feck all difference at first but i had to try something

OP posts:
JingleBelgoHoHoHo · 10/12/2007 12:44

is he hungry at night? how many times are you feeding him at night?

allIWannaBeForChristmas · 10/12/2007 12:45

you are not a bad person. You have done what is best for you and for your baby.

Did he enjoy it?

handlemecarefully · 10/12/2007 12:45

Why would you think that early weaning would help him sleep any better

Some babies just don't sleep unfortunately

fluffyanimal · 10/12/2007 12:47

You're not a bad person. You're just very tired.

Other people will probably come along and debate the rights and wrongs of early weaning, but I just want to say not to pin all your hopes on the weaning settling him at night, because it may not make any difference at all. I feel your pain though.

Wisteria · 10/12/2007 12:48

Mine were both weaned at between 4-5months tutters with no adverse effects, allergies or any other problems. It certainly improved the sleeping arrangements IMO.

You are not a bad person, don't worry about it - I know new guidelines state that it is better to wait until 6months etc but they will all change again in another few months/ years anyway - just go with your gut feeling xx

PrisonerCellBlockAitch · 10/12/2007 12:49

lol. i hope it works. you know QoQ's wee boy was grabbing food and eating it at (i think) just over 16 weeks? as far as i understand it, there appears to be no hard evidence of any damage done after 16 weeks, just no evidence of any benefit before 26 weeks. so if you can identify a benefit and you don't mind the faff then great.

Wisteria · 10/12/2007 12:49

In fact if I'm honest dd1 was on baby rice at 12-14weeks (on the HV advice) and dd2 was about 22 weeks.

DumbledoreWithBoughsOfHolly · 10/12/2007 12:50

I was thinking about this this morning. When I had my babies, it was recommended you started weaning at 4 months (in fact when I had ds1, the recommendation had just changed from 3 months so there were still people following that guideline and my HV told me to start ds1 on solids when he was 3 months). With all of my children, I can remember there was a period of time when milk did not seem to e satisfying them as before and the start on solids was quite a relief when it came. While not suggesting for a moment that all mothers of babies now should start weaning earlier than 6 months, I was wondering this morning whether you all notice an increase in your baby's appetite at about 4 months and what you do to satisfy it if you are determined to hang on until 6 months.

Perhaps Tutter has answered this point for me.

SweetSnowflake · 10/12/2007 12:50

TBH, if you find you LO sleeps/slept well after yo gave him food, then that tells you more than any book could!, you LO WANTS proper food and he is probably as exhausted as you are, well done for doing what YOU thinks best, wish id tried that!

PrisonerCellBlockAitch · 10/12/2007 12:50

although obv be careful about all the gluten etc. i take it that more milk feeds weren't an option?

PrisonerCellBlockAitch · 10/12/2007 12:52

dumbledore, i think there is a well-recognised growth spurt at 4 months, isn't there? and ime dd was fine until 6 mos having fed a lot through the growth spurt.

monkeybutler · 10/12/2007 12:52

I'd like to echo that comment that some babies just dont sleep. I had the same situation with my DS for two years. He eats everything put in front of him just didnt sleep for more than 3 hours until he turned 3 years old. I treated him exactly the same as DD who slept through from age 3 months. I did controlled crying and everything, she got the message, he howled for hours until he was sick. Hpe the food thing works for you - it didnt with my DS but good luck!

Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 12:54

in the past he has gone 12hrs between feeds

but tbh atm i will feed him at some point int he night just because he'll settle more quickly afterwards

wills till wake an hour later though

OP posts:
Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 12:54

ooh bugger there was only 1 post when i started tyoing that (had to go up and settle him) - let me catch up on posts...

OP posts:
DumbledoreWithBoughsOfHolly · 10/12/2007 12:55

Oh yes, I suppose it was obvious you would say you simply feed them more to get them through the growth spurt. Maybe it was because "in my day" (Gawd, pass me the simmer frame!) you knew the weaning line was in sight, I don't know, but I feel I would have really struggled if suddenly I had been told I had to keep going on breastmilk alone for 2 more months.

I take my hat off to you mothers of babies now. I know what 4 months of exclusive breastfeeding took out of me. 6 months is a real achievement!

DumbledoreWithBoughsOfHolly · 10/12/2007 12:56

zimmer frame even

Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 12:59

lately i have been letting him feed loads in the afternoon and early evening, to see if more milk would help

typically he'll have a bf at lunchtime, 3ish, 5ish, then (for the last week) a bottle of formula at bedtime (just before 7) plus a top-up from me

not sure i could get any more milk down him tbh

am i right in thinking a baby's size should have nothing to do with this (i.e. a bigger baby just takes more milk)? he's a whopper (>19lbs at 4.5mo - i.e. in the blue zone ont he charts)

OP posts:
Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 13:02

yes, wannabe, he seemed to love it. only a tiny bit pushed back out with tongue reflex

OP posts:
PrisonerCellBlockAitch · 10/12/2007 13:02

dumble, dd was mix-fed... i take my bloody hat off to women who are bfing exclusively as a matter of course.

anyway tutter, the magic question. is he asleep?

Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 13:03

he is right now, aitch

but i imagine that's got feck all to do with pear

OP posts:
nimnom · 10/12/2007 13:03

Haven't read the rest of this thread but you are not being a bad person - you are doing what you feel is right and there is nothing wrong with that.

PrisonerCellBlockAitch · 10/12/2007 13:07

lol, tutter. you must be looking forward to christmas with your Two Boys! so exciting.

Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 13:09

i am, aitch

ds1 is excited - first time he's 'got it' (he'll be 2.6yo) and it's making the whole thing much more fun for me to organise

a bit more sleep and it'll be great

OP posts:
allIWannaBeForChristmas · 10/12/2007 13:15

I seem to recall on a previous thread someone said that had she known how thin the evidence against weaning at 4 months was she would have weaned earlier than 6 months.

I weaned my ds at 4 months (as per the guidelines then) because he was hungry, starving in fact and refusing milk. There was no question that he was ready for solids - I gave him baby rice and we never looked back.

If I'm right, most of the guidelines relate to alergies, which, tbh, if they're not in the family, are less likely to occur anyway? and if I also remember correctly there is a currently a study going on which examines the effects of introducing certain foods, ie nuts, too late which means the body is more likely to develop a reaction to them so it is believed that the guidelines will soon change to introduce nuts earlier.

Reality is that babies don't come with a manual, and I frankly find it quite insulting to parents when people say that children are not ready to be weaned based on what the guidelines say.

all babies are different, surely?

Original poster
TutterrysChocolateOrange · 10/12/2007 13:23

funny you say that wannabe - if anything he has been harder to feed (rather than demanding more) - feeds for less time, fusses and pulls away, is distracted. that's not to say he doesn't want milk, but just that he hardly seems insatiable, milk-wise

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread