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

Weaning

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

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

90 replies

cupcake78 · 06/01/2008 19:48

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.

OP posts:
Jacanne · 07/01/2008 22:39

To OP - yes I think it is - dd1 started baby rice at 16 weeks - developed terrible constipation almost immediately (required manual removal) and has suffered from it ever since. Current advice is 26 weeks for a reason. Milk is more filling than baby rice which has very little nutritional value - it won't fill your child up - I would up his milk for a bit, he's probably having a growth spurt.

minorityrules · 07/01/2008 22:41

As an older mum, that had very old guidelines, I get confused about a lot of things

I believe all babies develop at very different rates and that includes moving on to solid foods. My eldest was text book (for the time) 3 hourly feeds and solids at around 17 weeks, she followed the guidlines at the time.

Child 2, was an unsettled pita baby, never ever seemed to enjoy a bf or ff, was very forward in developmental milestones, at 16 weeks she did grab bread and she did eat it and cried for more. In a week, she went from that one taste of bread to 3 meals of mush and finger foods and was eating sandwiches and what I now know as BLW by 5 months. She slept through the night for the first time that first week too and turned into a happy baby. She also rolled at 12 weeks, sat up at 16 weeks and walked at 8 months, spoke early (but took forever to learn to read lol)

Child 3 was a big, slow lump of a boy, exclusively bf for a year, established solids not until 8 months and slept through 12 hours, with 2 naps from birth. He showed no interest in food at all, until 7 months ish, when he went straight into chopped food. He is the one with severe asthma, so maybe his body was helping him avoid allergens (in a hippy way)

I don't understand why people talk about calories, it is digestion that is the thing that can help. Solid food, will sit in the tummy longer and stave off hunger. They still get the calories from the same amount of milk as before (unless you get my no2 child, who stopped drinking milk at about 6 months)

I believe guidlines are good ad should be followed where possible (to stop the silly weaning ages and to give a parent an idea of what to do) but there will be exceptions to the 'average' baby

When my time comes to be a grandparent, I will tell my kids to follow the guidelines as best they can but to watch for signs aswell. I truly believe being ready to eat is developmental stage, just the same as being physically ready and able to walk is

ShowOfHands · 07/01/2008 22:46

I never understand this 'my baby is big, s/he needs weaning earlier' thing. My dd was an average size at birth but rocketed off the charts after a few weeks. She was 23+lb when she had her first solids at about 28 weeks. I reasoned that breastmilk was doing just fine and dandy, why substitute it for something faffier? At 8 months milk is still the main source of her calories and thank the good Lord because one meal of finger foods and I have to whitewash the kitchen/pressure wash the highchair/scrub dd to within an inch of her life.

3andnomore · 07/01/2008 22:47

minority, but staying longer in the tummy for digestion is actually a BAD thing...not a good thing...it will also not always give the wanted effect...yes, with some aby's it conks them out, others get unsettled by it!
Calories are the key....calories is what puts the weight on, etc...

Staceym21AtLast · 08/01/2008 06:51

ok feel i may have to explain myself a little better, although i know many people on here are probably too at me to listen!

ds had reflux. at his growth spurts he couldn't/wouldn't drink more milk, because it was too painful/he would sick it all up again. the only thing that helped him was a little bit of baby rice to keep him full enough to sleep!

this was before the docs would put him on prescription formula, because he was still gaining weight, so where was the problem??

(well maybe in the fact the child cant drink more than 3oz for 5 hrs and pukes half that up?!?!)

i would not recommend it for anyone else, but this was my last resort after days of a non-sleeping baby and very unhelpful proffesionals!

i was just saying to OP she should trust her instincts.

and not sure why i felt the need to justify myself as none of you are remotely bothered what i feed my child!! but now iv written it i might as well post it!

Annabellemary · 08/01/2008 07:40

Thanks Habbibu, was thinking along the lines of that: that regardless of weight etc. a large six month old baby would have been drinking milk the same amount of time as a small six month old baby and therefore they would both be ready for weaning at the same development time regardless of weight as in when their digestive system was ready for it.

cupcake78 · 09/01/2008 00:04

What I ment was DS will not take a larger volume of milk at any of his feeds. He does seem more and more dissatified with his milk.

HV came out today (routine check) and said that the amount of milk DS is taking is in her opinion is too much liquid for his age and not enough bulk and could be resulting in a tummy ache due to the frequency of his feeds which is partly why he is waking and not settled.

She advised us to move onto hungry baby milk - so we have done that and will wait to see what happens.

I will go with my instinct mixed with guidance. But if DS is not content and it's his food that is the problem then it needs to be corrected.

OP posts:
welliemum · 09/01/2008 00:51

Cupcakes, you know your own baby best (goes without saying), but what your HV is telling you is weird.

"Too much liquid" for a 15 week old is giving him a "tummy ache"?

Please, next time you talk to her, ask her where she gets this information from. I'm really sceptical about limiting the volume of milk for a little baby.

I'm also a bit sceptical about the need to bulk out feeds. Breastfed babies have survived over the millennia without any need to do this. A breastfed baby who's hungry and growing will increase both the amount they take at a feed and the frequency of feeding until they feel full. I don't see why a ff baby would be any different.

Aitch · 09/01/2008 01:15

hungry baby milk is, i think i'm right in saying, just more difficult to digest isn't it? it's not actually any more calorific. so... i never really see the point of it. if you've got a hungry baby you should feed it more milk, not some weirdy product designed to occupy its wee tunmmy meaninglessly.

Aitch · 09/01/2008 01:16

cupcake, will he take a dream feed?

witchandchips · 09/01/2008 11:53

my ds had reflux and was v. hungry. The problem was that he could not keep the extra volume of milk he needed for calories in his stomach at one time. Little and often just wasn't working anymore.

i weaned at 17 weeks and yes it obviously made no difference at first as the amounts were tiny BUT it did mean that by 26 weeks he was on 3 self fed meals a day - he insisted on BLW even before i really knew about it!. I think there is a case for starting a bit earlier and taking it very slowly.

Aitch · 09/01/2008 12:07

witchandchips, i couldn't ask you to do me a favour and email me on aitch at baby led weaning dot com, could i?

witchandchips · 09/01/2008 12:11

done aitch

Aitch · 09/01/2008 12:12

cheers

tiktok · 09/01/2008 14:45

Aitch, you're right about the 'hungry baby milk'. The protein in it is less 'modified' so it (supposedly) takes longer to digest. About 30 years ago, formula was all like this, and then the manufacturers brought out 'modified' formulas which they marketed as the very latest thing because they were 'closer' to breastmilk, though they kept the less modified versions on the shelves, and started marketing them as 'for hungry babies'. I'm not aware of any proper research done that shows babies do go longer between feeds, and the anecdotal evidence is very mixed.

I note now that they are marketed as being a useful way of keeping babies 'off' solids by filling them up so they can go longer on milk only...again, not aware of any research that has tested this.

To be honest, I don't think modifying/not modifying the protein makes all that much difference, and it is just custom and practice and marketing that has made 'modified' formula (such as SMA Gold, which I think was the first formula like this) the formula babies start on. I think if I had a baby and had to give formula for some reason, I would probably use the modified (ie not hungry) type, but my common sense would tell me I was kidding myself that it was 'better' in any measurable way. Maybe it's 'better' in an unmeasurable way

New posts on this thread. Refresh page