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!

Indeed tiktok, I remember those days! (interestingly that happened more often with my first dc than my second...or maybe not!)

Thanks Tinkerbellesmum; now if you have any wise words re a 4 year old fussy eater I'd love to hear them!!

thanks for the info about iron tiktok. much obliged. it makes sense.

I think a lot of it is competitive parenting for example my son was eating baby rice at 8 weeks old he MUST be advanced.

I once posted on here about a friend who was giving her baby rusk in a bottle at 6 weeks old, not recommended now but perfectly acceptable 30 years ago.

I was a 34 week old premmie and apparently on potatoes and mince at 8 weeks old so that would be about term

There is still a theory especially amongst the older generation that the quicker you shove solid food down a babies throat the better.

i think there have been a few babies on MN who have grabbed food from elder siblings and chowed down. although i'm non-medical, it does make sense to me (as a BLWer) that the ability to grab and get food to the mouth etc will co-incide with the ability to eat (and if not, it's spat out) and thirdly, to digest solids.

It's well known that other areas of development happen in conjunction with each other, I don't see why nutrition should differ.

In case anyone's wondering what other areas, there is a poster up at my DSS's opticians that shows how the eyesight developes in conjunction with the abilities so they start seeing the next thing they need to do.

I am in Scotland and my HV told me 4 months! Apparently if I left it later my dd2 would not have the ability to use her mouth properly to chew food!! I weaned her at 5 months as she seemed ready to me......dd1 was weaned at 4 months (as per the guidelines then)

Both seem fine so far! I was weaned at 12 weeks, like my sister and we are also both fine....so far!! Only time will tell I suppose!

Tinkerbellsmum I am confused by your post of 1816 or did you mean you know MN too well to be scared to.

I think she may have meant MN????

Oh i see NM-netmums ,maybe time for a namechange

Think I should name change too now!!! obviously I am so loyal to MN that I dont even know of any other parenting sites!!

Good thread, Welliemum. I think in some ways taking folic acid is a good analogy - most women who don't take FA will have healthy children with no neural tube defects. Some won't. And until your child is diagnosed with an NTD, you don't know which group you fall into. So saying, "I didn't take FA and my child was fine" is a statement of fact, but it's no basis for advice to anyone else. Not a direct analogy, I know, as the food/digestive disorders/allergies/weaning thing is very complex, but instructive, nonetheless.

That's a good analogy, habbibu.

As you point out, saying "I didn't take folic acid and my child is fine" is just a statement of fact. And we know that most babies will be fine without supplementation. It doesn't work as an argument against the value of folic acid.

And if someone were to go around saying, "Don't bother to take folic acid, I didn't and my child is fine" - that's really overstepping the line because it's potentially putting someone else's child at risk.

We're responsible forever for advice that we give. I think people sometimes forget that on MN.

Sooo.... where do we all stand on the feeding of Skips to a babe of 2 months?

It's OK. I think I can guess. Witnessed at my ante-natal group meet-up after my first baby was born 11yrs ago. Even though the guidelines were a little different then, I'm nearly 100% certain that Skips were not recommended as first food . It was just the sheer oddness of it - why Skips of all vile things?

Well, I don't know of any randomised controlled trials of the potential adverse effects of eating Skips at 2 months of age, so I couldn't possibly comment....

PS DaddyJ, (if you're still reading): apology much appreciated! Welcome to the weaning crocodile pit forum!

He appeared to starlight. He certainly gummed them enthusiastically.

Welliemum, it has been an education!

I heard of a HV who recommended Skips as a good first weaning food when DS1 was a baby, four years ago. Because they "melt in the mouth, so they can't choke them" apparently.

Sorry, "choke on them" - I was thinking of what I'd like to do to the HV, clearly...!

What are Skips actually made of?

And will I deeply regret asking this?

How can you tell if you have done the right or wrong thing by weaning your children at X age? Time will not tell - illness occurs in every person, you are the luckiest person in the world if you get through your adulthood extremely healthily.

For instance my mother formula fed both myself and my brother and weaned us both at 12 weeks - so far we have not been struck down by any kidney/bowel/gut problems. She breastfed my youngest brother exclusively for 12 months and weaned him at 6, he has Chrohn's disease. How does that make sense? It doesn't.

Exactly fannybanjo.

Out of interest, has your mum said why she weaned your youngest brother later than the others?

Welliemum, the one thing on Mumsnet that gets my goat is the whole Weaning debate - anyone who DARES to mention they will wean their baby before 6 months is sent to coventry! As we all know, babies are different and most definitely before 4 months is too early but anytime after, I am sure does them no harm

My Mum left my brother until six months (which was rare in the seventies) because he just wasn't interested in food! The same happened with my DD2 but she loves food now (although only has a small amount compared to other babies her age).

Actually I don't think people are sent to Coventry for weaning early.

They will always get at least one comment saying "have you heard that the advice is 6 months" because so many people haven't.

They're also likely to have people arguing with their reasons, because a lot of the time people's reasons to wean are based on false information, for example that a bigger baby needs solids sooner than a small baby - a very common idea that doesn't fit with anything else we know about gut maturity.

IMO the reasons for weaning later are very, very strong. I'm glad I weaned later because each time I look at the science literature there seems to be more evidence in support of that. I often post about this on MN because I'd like people to have access to the information.

However, I'd never dream of citing my own children's good health as a vindication of what I did, that would make no sense.