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

Original poster

HV advise on weaning...what does everyone think?

72 replies

hollyboosmum · 14/04/2008 21:47

My dd is coming up to 5 months old and is relly interested in food and is feeding every 2 hours on Milk and taking a lot. SHe has started to wake in the night and i felt she needed something more.
I spoke to the health visitor about this and got the following answer. She stated under no circumstances that weaning should begin before 4 months but after that you are ok to start on simple foods. She also said that the research that has been done (which made them move the guidelines to 6 months) was based on children in third world countries and that it is better for them to have milk for 6 months but not always the case for western babies. She also thought it was a lot to ask of a 6 month old baby to go through wening very quickly...is soft stuff to lumpy in the space of weeks whereas before when you started them at 4 months they got adjusted to the food better and this resulted in less faddy eaters as the children get older..... just wondered what peoples thoughts on this were?

OP posts:

stripeymama · 14/04/2008 21:48

Bolleaux.

And at 6 months you can do BLW and cut out the faffy purees anyway.

stripeymama · 14/04/2008 21:49

Can she back up her opinion on the research at all?

Original poster

hollyboosmum · 14/04/2008 21:51

Also i seem to have put this thread on about three times don't know how..sorry to everyone.
She hasn't shown me anything to back up what she was saying. Thats why i thought i would ask to see if anyone else had heard this.

OP posts:

stripeymama · 14/04/2008 21:52

Nah she is bonkers ill informed.

Mum1369 · 14/04/2008 21:52

Imagine I will get shot down in flames.. but I started weaning both my boys at 4 mnths. Youngest currently 7mnths and eating EVERYTHING in sight !!! Both really ready to start and showing all the hungry signs you describe. I am of the opinion that you (pretty much) know what is best for your child. The 'current thinking' changes so often, that (within reason) go with your instincts. My children needed and were ready for something more, so that is what I gave them.

cmotdibbler · 14/04/2008 21:54

S'wrong innit. She feels she knows more than the Department of Health, World Health Organisation etc. Purees are an invention since 1940's, as before then they weaned at 9 months or later anyway.

claraquitetirednow · 14/04/2008 22:01

mum1369 i agree with you, weaned dd1 at 4 months and she is the best eater i know. have also just started dd2 at 17 weeks. what your hv says sounds like sense to me.

pofaced · 14/04/2008 22:02

My 3 DDs were all weaned at 4 months - that was the advice then (1997-2000). Eldest and youngest ate everything in sight from the get go but middle one found the whole spoon thing trickier and it took her a few months to be completely confident. My HV told me to wean as soon as they staretd to wak

The current guidelines seem predicated on the notion that everyone has excellent maternity pay and domestic help for 6 months and can spend their time feeding... mine were all breast fed but for successively shorter periods of time... I couldn't feed a hungry 5 month old every 2 hours and also deal with 2 older siblings who were still at home.
Do what you think best: being a parent is not about follwing rules rigidly but taking advice and making your own decisions/ judgement depending on your own circumstances.... oh, and baby rice is yuck!

stripeymama · 14/04/2008 22:03

I don't think its backed up by research though - its her opinion.

As a health professional she should be giving advice based on the latest research and following WHO/Dept of Health guidelines.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 14/04/2008 22:04

Ignore any mention of third world countries.

constancereader · 14/04/2008 22:05

I waited till 6 months on the basis that until then there was no way to be sure that my baby had a gut mature enough to handle food. He eats everything really well now. Waiting was very easy.

I was weaned at four months and as an adult have IBS. I have no idea if early weaning was a contributory factor in this - but I didn't want to take the chance.

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2008 22:06

there are consequences from weaning between 17 weeks and 6 months, i just can't remember what they are. you need welliemum, she's got the research.

i have some sympathy with the HV, though, someone once posted the HV practice guidelines on here and they were completely contradictory and impossible to understand. personally, i'd stick with the WHO, they know about babies in the world... although if a child of mine was capable of self-feeding earlier a bit than that i'd take that as a sign, but i wouldn't help out with all the puree gubbins.

cazzybabs · 14/04/2008 22:06

I am holding out for 6 months.

and pofaced I weaned dd1 at 6 months - I went back to full time work (no domestic help) when dd1 was 3 months and she had breast milk until a year (as well as some food) - mind you she is a faddy eater, but dd2 same (although I didn;t go bnack until she was 6 months) is a brillaant eater.

stripeymama · 14/04/2008 22:06

The current guidelines are based on the latest findings about gut maturity.

Parents are quie within their rights to ignore them.

But professionals should not present as fact, opinions that are at odds with the current advice from major health organisations.

harpomarx · 14/04/2008 22:07

i don't know if all that hv says is right, but another one here who weaned at around 4/5 months and had a good unfussy eater.

I don't know much about blw as that seems to be something that has come in very recently, it does seem to make sense though.

I think maybe the problems come about as many people seem very keen to give up milk feeds and then stress about the babies being hungry and getting panicky if they're not eating a lot.

cazzybabs · 14/04/2008 22:09

TBH I am dreading it - the change in nappies is horrid. Keep on with the milk for as long as poss I say. And as for making all that food - blimey it is faff

stripeymama · 14/04/2008 22:10

BLW is not something recent!

Its the way babies will have been weaned since for ever - till we invented the blender and ice cube trays.

seeker · 14/04/2008 22:13

I am a great believer in a mother knowing what is best for her baby in lots of circumstances, - but I don't think that maternal instinct gives you x ray vision and allows you to see how developed a baby's gut is.

Original poster

hollyboosmum · 14/04/2008 22:13

Is it right though to make a baby wait till 6 months just because that it the latest thing they are telling us to do when you can see your baby is hungry and needing something more? Has more babies been found to have allergies etc because they have been fed at an earlier age or is it because they are trying to promote breast feeding for as long as possible? It is so confusing. As the previous guidelines stated that it was 4 months shouldn't that mean then that we have all damaged our kidneys etc and become allergic to things because our mother fed us at the recommended time? (which was 4 months then)

OP posts:

seeker · 14/04/2008 22:13

StarlightMcKenzie · 14/04/2008 22:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

AitchTwoOh · 14/04/2008 22:19

what more, though? more carrot?

if you go on a diet they tell you to eat more salad and less full-fat milk, so this business of 'needing more' being satisfied with pear puree is a bit of a red herring imo.

harpomarx · 14/04/2008 22:23

yes, yes, stripeymama, I understand the thinking behind it!

i am just referring to the fact that the term hadn't been bandied around a few years ago and pureeing was the norm, wrong or right.

in that sense it is something recent, in the sense that breastfeeding on demand is 'recent' for some older generations who were raised on a stricter routine of feeding every four hours or some such, even though bfing on demand is the 'since for ever' way!

EffiePerine · 14/04/2008 22:28

4/5 months is also a time for a biiig growth spurt with many babies. Doesn't meant they need solids, or that solids will fill them up or make them sleep for longer... I started DS on solids at 5.5 months and his sleep became even worse!

Re bfing versus solid food, I found bfing sooooo much easier than faffing around with steaming and cooking and cooling and trying new flavours and the endless endless washing up and changing of clothes. Plus you need to be in or at least near a food source at certain times rather than feeding wherever and whenever - keep em on milk for as long as possible!

EffiePerine · 14/04/2008 22:29

(not just me, all the other mums in my postnatal group commented on how much more difficult their lives were when they'd started solids, with both bf and ff babies).

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread