Is 15 weeks too early to start with a small!! amount of baby rice

[cupcake78]

DS is feeding up to 7 times a day anything from 7-8oz bottles. He is a big baby.

Last two weeks he has started to wake every three hours in the night for a feed after sleeping throught for over 6 weeks.

I am tempted to give him a very small amount of babyrice as part of his last night feed?

I know people say not until 17 weeks but does 2 weeks really make a difference? I wouldn't give him anything else.

Doesn't that say something to you Fio?

Not saying you should start weaning btw - just that some babies are ready for food earlier.

Yes too early - more milk required.
Although the guidelines say 6 months, no this won't fit all babies but this does not mean 6 months is latest and some wean before, some wean after too!
His tummy won't really be ready for anything yet, hold off for at least a few more weeks.
Sleeping patterns do for up and down in the first few months anyway - sleeping through at 8 wks - 14 wks does not mean that he will continue to do so ongoing (unfortunately! )

go not for

too early, they are reayd for food when they ccan eat it themselves and not have it shovelled in. typos, feeding baby

ah you see I have three aswell and things rarely meet guidlenes anymore Maybe am a bit long in the tooth re weaning and the pros/cons to share my opinion as lots of things infuriate me! My ds3 (8 months) was a food lurcher as well - in fact he still does it - we were in a cafe the other day with friends and he leant across his highchair table, grabbed a cake off a plate and shoved it in his mouth Its a learning curve and I really couldn't give a hoot what kellymom says tbh.

But babies lurch for all sorts of things and put them in their mouths - it's just what they do. I'm not convinced it's a particularly useful "weaning" sign.

Lurching isn't but putting in mouths, chewing and swallowing is a give away.

Am off this now as think cupcake has had some good advice and needs to decide what she thinks is best.

x post fio LOL

THe trouble with weaning is that it's so culturally dependent, and so bound up in emotions (providing food for your child goes very deep I think).
Which is why some scientific evidence is useful.

TrinityRhinosDhWonHerAnIPOD

I agree that more milk is the best.

DD1 was 9lb 4oz at birth and at 17wks was having a 8oz bottle every 4hours.

dd2 was 9lb 2oz at birth and at 17wks will only have a 5oz bottle (any more then she brings it back) and will have to be force her to take a bottle every 4hours, and then she will scream until she takes it. But will happly eat a small amount of food at lunch time.

As for sleeping during the night dd1 woke at least once a night until she was 2years and dd2 has a bottle at 11pm then sleeps until 6am.

There is some evidence to suggest gut maturity ties in with the ability to feed themselves so that's a sure way to know that you aren't causing your child future problems with allerges and their gut. Not worth the risk for a shovel of crappy, bland baby rice.

I have 3 children too and youngest is almost 1. He was BLW at 6 months as he was then ready, he could sit unaided, feed himself etc and the food he got into his mouth he ate.

We started with well steamed veg. Also, it's 26 weeks not 17 for weaning. I just don't see why anyone would risk their child's health for the sake of early weaning, it's not about everyone knowing what's best for their child it's about medical facts.

I should think that most babies aren't really capable of chewing and swallowing solid potato at 15 weeks, though - the tongue-thrust reflex would put paid to that.

Oh settle, Fio. I said most. I have no reason to doubt what happened with you, but it is probably unusual. I'm not trying to prove anything, just making what I thought was a fairly mild-manned observation.

you know what I am going to get lynched for this but...

I think all this "they are ready when they can pick up food and put it in their mouthes themselves" and "they only need more milk because that's what the research says" a load of absolute bollocks. Bearing in mind the guidelines for weaning only changed 4 years ago, and until then the recommended age was after 16 weeks, that implies that everyone who weaned at 16 weeks before that because the then suggested signs said they were ready, all got it wrong, and that actually every baby weaned at 16 weeks (according to the guidelines) was actually weaned 10 weeks early - what a load of crap. Ultimately every baby is different, and there isn't a switch that suddenly turns on at 26 weeks to say they need food, just as some babies develop earlier on a physical/emotional level, so some babies develop earlier and require something more than milk earlier. I know my ds certainly did. He was hungry, starving in fact but was refusing milk, so what would the powers that be have suggested I do? leave him to scream because he "wasn't ready"? As it happens I gave him baby rice at 15 weeks and he loved it and never looked back.

I actually read somewhere that one of the reasons why the recommended weaning age was raised was to prevent people from weaning at 8/12 weeks as had been more common place then.

and given that alergies in children are increasing and not decreasing, that doesn't exactly lend evidence to the argument that weaning at 26 weeks is best does it?

No worries, Fio. Have a hot drink and a blanket!

I was determined to wait as long as possible to wean. (One of my reasons was that we were going abroad when DD was 5.5 months and I thought it'd be easier to just breastfeed! )

However DD had other ideas. She was fascinated by food. At 17 weeks she was in her bumbo on our kitchen table, leaned out, picked up a toast crust and started chomping.

We started very slowly then, with whatever veg we were having for our meal. But held off the protein etc until DD was over 6 months.

TBH didn't use baby rice so can not offer the OP any suggests with regard to that but do think that all babies are different and some are certainly capable of feeding themselves at an early age as Fio has demonstrated

one of the wisest things i was told by a HV was that "it was only food".

wannabe... see PrismManchip's post.

the allergies thing, a total red herring, loads of other factors to consider, environmental factors amongst others. and the WHO did, you know, when it took all the literature and bound it up into the 26 week guideline (about ten years ago).

plus... we have a desperately unhealthy population at the moment, bottle fed, weaned 'early' etc, that's a trend worth looking at if we're keeping it strictly anecdotal.

and why does the idea that if your child can pick up food and eat it (happened to QoQ's baby at 20 weeks i think) not suggest that it's ready to eat?

cupcake i may be lynched for this, but id say trust your instincts.

my ds had a v. small amount of baby rice at 6 weeks and 12 weeks, as he wouldn't sleep without it. it went on for a few days, a couple of spoonfuls a day.

he is just fine, held off proper weaning until 6 months because he wasnt overly interested.

hes now 14 mo and only allergic to tomato (same as his sister) which he is growing out of (same as his sister)

if there is a history of allergies i would hold of certain things, but other than that i wouldnt worry about a bit of baby rice

(except that it looks and tastes like wallpaper paste! )