Can we knock this "My child was weaned at X weeks and is perfectly healthy" thing on the head? It's not a good argument.

[welliemum]

I've just been reading about early life influences on adult disease risk - for example, the way birth weight and early growth affect someone's risk of having heart disease decades later.

The experts in this field all seem to agree on one thing: that early nutrition and growth have a significant impact on health in later life. However, because this sort of thing is so hard to study, no-one really knows how it all works, what's good, what's bad, who's the most at risk.

Very frustrating for someone like me who isn't involved in the research but just wants to know what to do with my own children to give them the best start in life.

That's why I enjoy discussing this sort of thing on MN, trying to sort out the clear evidence from the myths. But we can't use our own young children as examples.

I weaned my 2 at a particular age (doesn't matter what). They're now 3 and nearly 2 and very healthy.

So can I congratulate myself because the weaning age I chose was obviously the right one? Absolutely not. I could have got it hideously wrong, and only the next 60 years or so will tell.

We have to take the long view on this sort of thing.

Rant over!

DG: Strong arguments, well put.

Can I just stress to any 'amateur parents' reading this thread:
PLEASE continue posting your own personal experiences,
that's what Mumsnet is about, pooling our collective wisdom
gleaned through daily contact with our dcs.

by Greenmonkies on this thread:

I thought it provided useful insight on this topic.

"From a purely anecdotal view point, I work for the NHS in diagnostic radiology, we do lots of barium enemas, which visualise the bowels of patients. There has, according to the specialist radiographers and radiologists I work with, been a sharp increase in the number of these tests done on those who are currently in thier 40's and 50's, ie, were born in the 50's and 60's, when formula and early weaning with rusk type mush was recommended. The levels and severity of diverticular disease and other inflamitory bowel conditions like crohns and coeliac disease has gone up significantly. We are now seeing people in thier 40's who are riddled with diseases like this compared to fairly healthy bowels in 60 and 70 year olds (who would have been more likely to be breastfed and weaned later) . The result of infant feeding trends perhaps? "

DG - you are assuming that I means drugs, nicotine and over eating, maybe i meant drinking coffee or eating red meat.

My argument would remain I am afraid SirDigby.

out of interest DG, wrt you post at Mon 19-May-08 09:14:40

when were the guidelines to wean onto solids set at 12 weeks? [truly ignorant] What I know is that since 2004 or 5 the guidelines changed in the UK from 17 wks to 26 wks.

however, I also know that the WHO, etc set the 26 wk recommendations over 10 yrs ago. Shame it took the UK so long to change their recommendations to parents but then again, that is another thread.

My son was born in 1996. At that time, the guidelines were to wean at 16 weeks but they could only just have changed as old pamphlets mentioned weaning at 12 weeks and jars of baby food still sometimes said "From 12 weeks" on them - though maybe that is not a good indicator of when the guidelines changed if jars nowadays still say "from 16 weeks" on them?!

My son was a big boy, and a voracious feeder and my HV did advise me to start weaning early (he was 12 weeks and 4 days when he ate his first solids) but to keep the weaning to just baby rice initially.

HTH you.

DG, I really hope you don't feel guilty or 'got at' when people mention what the current recs are. I can't say for definite but I would say taht the weaning recs in the UK were at 17wks long before 1996. Someone like Tiktok would probably know when they changed from 12 to 17 wks so don't hold me to that.

For me it sounds like you were concientious and tried to inform yourself by taking advice from people who should have been informing you according to what the then current guidelines were. Your HV should have said 17 wks. end of. It is not her position to give you what was essentially her opinion and say that is better because your baby was demanding feeds more often and was big. Frequency of hunger and size does not say how mature his gut was. I teach a a 6ft 2 teenager in a Yr 8 class. It doesn't mean that anyone should advise him to do weightlifting because he is still physically too young and it can damage his still growing and hardening bones.

This is the same arguement that a lot of us 'weaning nutters' will use today because when guidelines are updated for the general populations, they are done so by people who are being very conservative about the research they use to make those recommendations.

It is why we weaning nutters are that the gov't has done little to make manufacturers follow current guidelines. In fact it is shocking as i am sure the large manufacturing companies use all kinds of clout to delay and postpone and postpone anything that will cause them profit.

I am not definitely sure about this, but I have a feeling when this conversation was aired a while ago on MN, someone with a child a year or two older than mine came on and told us that the guidelines were 12 weeks when their little one was a baby and then changed shortly afterwards, so I think the change occurred in 1994/1995. But I would bow to anyone else's superior knowledge.

No I don't feel got at or guilty at all. I fully believe what I did was based on current recommendations (as they stood at the time) and I trusted my health visitor to give me informed and helpful advice. I am sure none of us can be expected to do better than that.

Soapbox's post of 9:38 sums up my feelings best. But I have faith in most mothers that they are doing what they believe is best for their child and I would like (and mostly get, I have to say) the same respect paid to me.

In my head I have the idea that the guideline changed to 6 months in 2003, in fact, I'm thinking May 2003....I think the Cow & Gate woman said at our weaning talk.

I believed her, she seemed trustworthy. She brought gifts

I was refering to the change from 12 weeks to 16 weeks.

this doesn't really say when it was changed from 12 wks, DG, but the abstract suggests that at 1990 it as already 17 wks.

I believe you. There was some very out of date literature hanging around in those days then. Not to mention labelling on jars. But we know that from the current situation don't we?

Hey, what can I say? My son was weaned at 12 weeks and so far seems to be holding his own against everyone else. Oh no, that comes back to the OP doesn't it? I am not allowed to say that. Consider it unsaid.

my ds1 was weaned on advice atc3 months against my wishes and has multiple intolerances

well said welliemum

I'm just starting to wean my son and have been talking to my mum about differences between then (30 odd years ago) and now. I was bottle fed, weaned at 12 weeks, placed on my front to sleep at the top end of the cot and fed brown sugar solution to aid constipation

I have no food allergies, no food intolerances, no asthma or excema or hay fever, I'm not obese and have had no serious illnesses despite my 'early' weaning. Anything that happens to me from now on I'm far more likely to put down to alcohol, eating rubbishy foods and a love of double espressos!

We do our best with the guidance and knowledge that we have at the time. What else can we do?

My friend had her daughter in 1997 - she was told 3 months

My 1st DC was 2001 and I was told 4 months

By the time DC 2 arrived in 2003 it was 6 months

Agree with DG and Soapbox.

I've got the GOSH baby and childcare book which was first published in 1991 and updated in 1997. It recommends anywhere between 4 and 6 months, but specifically says not before 4 months old.

Afaik, I was weaned at about 6 weeks old but my mum says it was very gradual - a teaspoon or two a couple of times a week. I'll ask her if she knows when she was weaned (sometime during 1940)

friend of mine was weaned at 8 wks back when the guidelines must have been 12 wks (30 yrs ago) she has IBS but her mum swears that none of her kids suffer from any illness which may connect to early weaning.

I'm a bit surprised to see the old "The guidelines keep changing" argument on this thread - it's a regular visitor to weaning age threads but it's not terribly relevant to the OP of this one.

But if we're on the subject of "not good arguments", that's another argument that doesn't work.

Here's why:

1. the guidelines don't keep changing. Tiktok has explained this all before, with dates. It's a perception, not reality.

But even if they did keep changing:
2) They could change 1000 times and the 1001st guideline can still be the best one. You can't assess the validity of current advice by how often it's been different in the past.

3. Specifically for weaning age: previous advice was based mainly on cultural practice. Current advice is based on health research. With this extra information, it's extremely unlikely that the advice will revert.

And back to the thread: I'm quite certain that the 6 month weaning advice will change with time. If I had to guess, I'd say (based on what I've read of the research) that with better knowledge, the guidelines will become more tailored for specific situations. For example, children in allergic families might need to wean later than the rest, but be introduced to certain allergens earlier.

I think it's entirely possible - even likely - that the generally recommended weaning age will shift upwards, although there will probably always be children who can safely be weaned earlier. (Maybe in the future we'll be able to tell who they are.)

So in 10 years' time I may well find out that my children weren't weaned at the best age for them. I can only hope I will be able to take it on the chin, and won't try to discredit the new advice to make myself feel better.

In addition to 3).

When formula was first introduced it wasn't enough to sustain a baby for very long so purees came in so that babies could be weaned far earlier than previously. Since then formula got better and studies have slowly pushed back the weaning age to closer to what it was.

Someone once posted on Aitch's blog extracts from parenting manuals they'd been reading. Babies were being weaned at 9 and 12 months (IIRC). That's in the UK!

TM, yes, babies were regularly weaned a lot later - only when it became a commercial enterprise did they realise that if you set up a "ooh, we must have special food for babies" industry, it's a great idea to make your target market as young as possible. Cos then your shareholders are happy.

But the idea that any company is in it for anything other than the babies is too much for some people - shame, since it's all about the profit for them - the babies are incidental, although that's not in the marketing spiel.

I'm interested in iron levels in babies who were weaned onto solids at 9 and 12 months
my dd was bf til 6 months then ill at 9 months and blood tests showed low iron, again low iron at 12 months. anyone know anything about how common this would have been if weaning was commonplace at 9 or 12 months of age?

Tink, where have you got this from:

"When formula was first introduced it wasn't enough to sustain a baby for very long so purees came in so that babies could be weaned far earlier than previously."

????????

Hunker, the rise in commercial formula gave rise to ready made baby foods. I'm with you, I couldn't get my head around the Gill Rapley bashing but "we'll listen to Heinz because they make multi-millions in this so they must know what they're talking about!"

There are babies who did BLW and refused to eat, (I can't remember who said it, anyone remember?) their iron levels were checked regularly as a compromise between mum and HCP, they were never low. In the most it is a myth but you will get aneamia at any age.

morocco - any test for iron levels is presupposing a definite healthy/unhealthy iron level. There are different ideas on this. Some babies may appear to have 'low' iron levels, but maybe the supposed 'low' level is actually normal...

There are papers which show that babies diagnosed with 'low' iron levels are actually ok, and the babies are unsymptomatic. They can be tested later and found to be normal, too. There may be some transient 'low' levels which correct themselves without doing any harm as the baby grows and starts having a different diet.