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!

I dunno that it's moaning Fio. And lets face it, posting it on here is going to reach a far wider audience isnt it?

Agree totally with OP.

Been awhile and different PC since I had links, will find them back out.

If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing welliemum; there's a big difference between saying

"My child was weaned at X weeks and is perfectly healthy (so far) - Phew! Dodged a bullet there, lucky us!"

and

"My child was weaned at X weeks and is perfectly healthy (so far) - so why don't you do the same as me, you'll also be fine, I'm sure"

The first shares one's experience, acknowledges the risks we now know exist. Completely valid, and welcome info!

The second argument is what pops up regularly on the weaning discussions, and provides false reassurance and encouragement to ignore the risks to those who have not yet taken action on weaning.

I think it's the second argument which would be better worded with caution.

Tink, thanks for offering to find out more....I seriously doubt you will find anything credible.

When formula was introduced, you say, it was deemed not sufficient to sustain a baby, and so purees and so on were recommended from early on to ensure the ff baby was nourished.

I really don't think this can be true. Early formulas were really not much different from casein-dominant formulas we buy today (sometimes called 'stage 2' milks or 'hungrier baby milks'). The slight modifications introduced to them over the past 30 years or so have not made any difference to the calorie value.

By the same token, maybe those who have research-based advice to give
could also refrain from making sweeping statements of the scaremongering variety
and instead provide some figures so parents can make their own informed decisions.

If we take it as read that early weaning carries risks,
what are the odds?
1 in 10? 1 in 1000? 5 in 100000?

What I think about this is simple. The guidelinse have changes - and I suppose might change again. But it seems to me to be only common sense to work with the most up to date information available. And even though introducing solids earlier than 6 months may ot do any harm to most babies, NOT introducing solids until 6 months is definitely NOT going to do any harm to any babies. So take even a slight risk?

DaddyJ - can you link to any 'sweeping statements of the scaremongering variety'? I don't recall any, but I don't read every word that's posted on this and maybe I have missed something. Anyway - do post some examples, or else we might think you are exaggerating.

As for stats, it would take a while to post stats on all the risks, which are going to differ according to the condition.

But if you are interested, there is statistical info in the Cochrane reports on weaning, and in the WHO papers outlining their reasons for establishing weaning guidance.

However, some risks may not have been expressed in the terms you ask for - this is the nature of 'risk'. 'Risks' are not always precise cause and effect, so you cannot always say in an individual's case that they have a 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 of acquiring something, solely by being weaned early.

Not everyone wants to see statistical info on mumsnet - someone on another thread asked me what the stats were that linked formula feeding to morbidity and mortality, and I posted a link to some papers that showed this. Then there was a cry of outrage from someone who told me I was 'scaremongering'.

You also have to remember that some information is speculation - like the post written by GreenMonkies which is linked to here. As long as this is presented as speculation, and not fact - and in this case it was clearly speculation - then what is there to object to? We are grown ups here, and we can recognise the difference between an untested hypothesis based on observation rather than research, and a proper evidence-based study.

"there's a lot of people out there who do things that are definitely bad for them (tests, studies etc have proven it) and they can say that they are fine. there's always going to be an exception to the rule."

A sweeping scaremongering statement that in this context will inevitably get people's backs up.
On this very thread, tiktok. And it was picked up and quoted by DG.

It's that kind of statement that will then prompt other people to say 'lots of people we know weaned at 4 weeks and all is well'.

I agree with you regarding speculation and anecdotal statements so
I take it you disagree with the OP? Surely, if we don't object to speculation
then why should we object to parents talking about their own experiences?

Regarding 'the nature of risks' even without checking the documents myself
your statements seem very plausible but then I wonder:
Can we say that those who have weaned early might actually have taken a very small risk?

"there's a lot of people out there who do things that are definitely bad for them (tests, studies etc have proven it) and they can say that they are fine. there's always going to be an exception to the rule."

That's not a sweeping, scaremongering statement - it's a fact!

That's like saying "If you put your head in a sealed plastic bag you will suffocate" is a sweeping, scaremongering statement!

I am mystified. Clearly, my definitions of 'sweeping' and 'scaremongering' are different from yours, Daddyj.

I don't object to people sharing their own experience, but they need to know what they observe in their sample of one or two or three does not justify them recommending the same practice to others. I do object to them drawing definite conclusions from their own experience, just as I would object to anyone drawing a definite conclusion from speculation (eg 'I see a lot of late onset bowel disease in people who would have been weaned early 40 years ago' - but that's not a conclusion, just a speculation).

Look, how about you stop 'wondering' whether the risks are small, and simply check the documents? Then you can make qualitative judgements yourself about 'small' risks or 'very small' risks.

In this context, on this thread, it's quite clearly not a fact but a suggestive statement that unnecessarily creates confusion and fear.

Particularly when the reality could be the other way around:
weaning after 4 months should be fine but there are exceptions.
It all depends on the stats.

tiktok, Greenmonkies did do just that - have a look at the full speculative post.

It is a problem that you find it mystifying particularly when you re-read the thread
and note DG's reaction to that post.

If you struggle to put yourself in other people's shoes, you will struggle to get your message across.
Which is a shame because on this occasion you might actually have a point.

I am just reading the documents you mentioned but maybe you would care to put
an end to this cat and mouse game and just tell me what the stats are? Pretty please.

I think I've misunderstood the op of this thread (I don't normally read weaning threads tbh)

Welliemum, are you saying that current advice shouldn't be undermined by parents of children who were weaned at different ages, and that the current advice has actually been around for longer than most of us realise, and that baby food/milk manufacturers are ignoring government advice in order to sell more of their products?

Tiktok, we are grown ups here, we can recognise the difference between
a parent saying that their dcs were weaned without any issues at 4 months and a proper evidence-based study.

If you have read the studies and you know that you have The Facts
then why even be bothered by such posts?

Daddyj, you are easily scared if statements saying some people do things that are bad for them and who say they are fine. I can't see that is remotely frightening or confusing on this thread or anywhere else.

I have explained why a simple presentation of stats is not possible - the risks will vary according to the condition you are looking at, whether the baby has had formula milk or has been bf exclusively, whether there is atopy or other illness in the family (as some of these conditions have a strong genetic component)....can you not see that?

I am not avoiding the question, but you are avoiding getting off your backside to look at the evidence - check the work of Kramer and Kakuma, the WHO info on weaning guidance, the NICE guidelines on infant feeding, and also the work of SACN which advises the UK dept of health on infant nutrition.

Daddyj - I am only 'bothered' by posts which purport to tell other parents what to do based on their own experience. I then challenge them.

This is a talk board. People do this sort of thing on talk boards.

Did you not know that?

DaddyJ, perhaps because such posts are illogical, irrelevant and misleading to others?

Ds1 was FF from birth and weaned at 12 weeks as the guidelines were then.
He has had problems with his bowels eg IBS like symptoms and chronic constipation all his life which has gotten worse and will continue to do so i suspect.

Ds2 BF only and weaned at 6 months. No problems so far.

Dd1 BF only and weaned 7/8 months. No problems so far.

Dd2 BF only and weaned at 6/7 months. No problems so far.

I can't say that early weaning is the cause and i realise that i only did what was reccommended when ds1 was a baby. If other mums mention early weaning i do tell them what problems ds1 has and that i weaned the orther dc later. It does make me feel a bit crap tho

I waited with my younger dc's to wean later to be on the safe side.

What i just don't understand is why anyone continues to wean early - there is no advantage to it and there is a potential risk. So why? It's almost as if some people say "Nobody's telling ME what to do - I'll give her baby rice at 3 months if I want to - how dare "they" tell me I can't"!

It's a very odd mind set and I don't understand it.

It's funny how on some issues people actually prefer real experiences to actual scientific evidence. I don't understand it either.

My nephew is about 7 weeks and my SIL has already given him food (dipping her finger in things) and is going on about "I can't wait to get him on solid food". All her kids were weaned incredibly early - my neice, not even as prem as Tink was weaned before she was term! The celebrate the fact that the kids put on disgusting amounts of weight a week. I'm not allowed to be pro-breast or AP in front of them, I get shot down very quickly, "they're always changing guidlines, it doesn't mean anything" "people can do what they want, why should you worry about it" (from the people who tried to get me to wean early, not use the sling or any number of AP-type things they've tried to talk me out of).

Sorry, I think I've drifted there, just a bit of a sore one from the weekend

The study of health and behaviour is an interesting one - people are motivated/not motivated to engage in health 'choices' for all sorts of reasons, and can happily deny/forget/ignore what they want. Even if you place the evidence on a plate served up with a side dish of facts, stats, research and set it under their nose they may not do anything. It's very, very complex. I have just read a paper which discusses explaining risk to people being treated for various ailments, and there are about 20 pages just to describe the research on it.

People say they want 'facts' so they can 'make up their own mind' but when the facts are shared, people accuse the fact-giver of scare-mongering (as I was, on another thread).

People say they want 'unbiased information' but if the info comes up with something they don't like, they will tell you it is somehow 'biased' or that the facts are 'being shoved down my throat'

In the end, some people just do what they want to do, and this can be influenced to a greater or lesser extent by what they see happening around them, what their gran tells them, whatever 'guidelines' their health visitor is inventing for them.

That's very interesting about the gut disorders presenting in people of about 40-50.

Can I stick my oar in ? There is increasing evidence that how a child is fed in the first year as well as their nutritional status during pregnancy determines the future risk of things such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.I wonder if the increase in type 2 diabetes and it's younger presentation in the same population as green monkies talks about is partly due to changes in infant feeding in the ?1950s/1960s ?. Could it also be that being suboptimally weaned programes you to less healthy food choices (to do with glucose/insulin levels)later in life ? I don't know, but as Welliemum says there is more research and evidence pointing that way.