If you don't follow latest research or guidelines wrt baby feeding (in particular weaning)

[hunkermunker]

Can I ask why?

Obviously all babies are individuals, yada yada - and guidelines are just that.

But what happens to make you disregard the up-to-date stuff?

(This is following on from a posting on another thread - but I wanted to make it a less personal, wider thread, rather than it be construed as an attack on one person - because I think the process of how we make decisions regarding our children is interesting).

I chose to disregard official advice and start to wean my ds at 5 months rather than wait until 6. This was based on my instinct. It seemed the right time and he had doubled his birth weight and was chugging down massive milk feeds and still being unsettled afterwards.

A mothers instinct shoudl always trump "official" advice. All children differ and so will their needs.

Wasabipeanut, can I ask if you understand why official advice is to wait until after 26weeks?

I don't agree re mother's instinct always trumping official advice. I think the word is used in a not quite accurate way wrt weaning.

When DS1 was born the guidelines were 4 months. He was born early and was 6lb at birth and we weaned at 4 months.

When DS2 was born he was full term and almost 9lb at birth. By then the guidlines had changed to 6 months.

By 5 months I felt he was ready for solid food and he was. Common sense, maternal instinct, call it whatever, told me that giving him food 3 weeks early would do him no harm.

Is there any research to suggest that bigger babies need weaning earlier?

I'm actually waiting for a company to market some sort of placenta-enhancer to women, you know. And then women will talk about "instinctively" knowing their baby needed it.

With ds1 my HV told me to wean at 18 weeks. I resisted, we argued blah blah and I never went back. Her argument was that the guidleines only say 6 months so that people hang on until 4 months.

Yes I do VS but as I said, my instinct told me the time was right. He was no longer satisfied by milk alone and was between 23 and 24 weeks. I find it hard to believe that at the dot of 26 weeks everything changes.

Are you only referring to first timers or mothers with more than one child?

In the case of mothers with more than one child, they quite frequently do what they did the first time round. Not many of us study the books and leaflets with the same enthusiasm the second time round as we did the first, particularly if you had no problems and your baby was happy and healthy.

The guidelines on weaning, for example, only changed in 2003 which isn't that long ago and quite easy for a mother of a 5 year old not to know anything about the changes in guidelines. It may take a whole generation to change thinking, to a time in which all new mothers having their children know of no other approach.

It is interesting though. If I ever get to study health psychology I would seriously consider bf and weaning behaviour as a good line of enquiry for a dissertation. (Not much chance of that - too old - but I can dream)!

dd1 was born early 2004 just after the advice had changed (I think). Lots of people inc hv made comments about how lucky we would be to get to 17 weeks because she was such a "big baby" - almost 10lb born. In the end we started at 20 weeks, in retrospect we could have probably waited (and I wish we had now, knowing what I know)

dd2 born 2007, we waited until 25 weeks which I felt to be "right". I was more confident in this decision, and as dh has coeliac disease I wanted to do everything possible to minimise her risks. I was able to b/f exc for those 25 weeks as well.

good question

ds1 was 23 weeks
ds2 was only 20 weeks

i think it was in part, at least, desperation (both were crappy sleepers, both started to wake in the night at these points)

also, embarrassingly, i was excited (ds1 only, of course)

both were big - between 75th and 91st centiles by this point - and i imagine i may have taken this into consideration

Any, really, Niecie.

I think the guidelines changed longer ago than that - have seen 10 years ago in other places, but know Tiktok knows for sure.

I know that the change wasn't trumpeted as loudly until the Government changed the paid mat leave period to six months though.

HVs often have their own homespun theories, kill bless them.

My babies have all been big, 5lb 1.5 born at 32weeks, 8lb 7.5 at 38 weeks, 10lb 3oz at 41weeks, they were/will be weaned at 26weeks, because I don't feel happy with risking the possibility that they are not one of the babies whose gut isn't ready for solids before then, as there is no way to tell scientifically, just by this apparent 'instinct' it seems.

Hunkermunker considering official advice, on this subject in particular, has changed so much do you think its really safe to rely on?

Oh, and Niecie, I would so love to do some more research into that kind of thing - would need to be something I was paid to do, so that kinda scuppers that!

I wish we could get away from 'instinct'. I think what people mean when they use the word in this context (when to start with other foods) they don't mean a sort of animal or reflexive or hormonally driven behaviour. They mean 'a sensitive perception and understanding of my child's individual needs' and who could argue with that as a basis for making a decision? Of course that is going to be, should be, has to be, stronger than any guideline on whatever topic or behaviour area you're talking about.

But along with that there should also be an understanding of the background to general guidance, so you know in what way your child's needs differ.

It's not knowing that which makes people quite certain their younger baby 'needs' solids, when they are (for instance) waking up, feeding more often, looking at others eating, getting excited when 'Jamie's Kitchen' comes on TV and so on...none of which are signs that a baby 'needs' more of anything except maybe milk.

wasabigpeanut, not sure what you mean? Are you suggesting the six-month guideline isn't reliable?

wasa, of course not all babies change on the dot of 6 mths - would be daft to think that.

no, i didnt think he needed weaning earlier because he was bigger. I just felt that if a smaller baby (i.e DS1) could cope with being weaned at 16 weeks because the guidelines said so, then DS2 would not come to harm by having solid food. He was still weaned later than DS1, just slightly earlier than the new guidelines.

I think it's hard to argue that personal knowledge of your baby has no bearing on weaning onto solids, when instinct certainly (IMO) helps in other areas of babycare, such as letting you know when you baby needs a feed, or a cuddle or a sleep.

I always intended to wait until 6 months, but at 20 weeks ds grabbed my banana and stuffed it into his mouth. I started weaning him after that, but went very slowly, introducing new things at the rate of about two a week until he was 6 months. At 14 months he will eat anything and shows no sign of any problem, but with subsequent children I would still wait until 6 months if possible. I would never wean any younger than 5 months.

But 6 mths is a good guideline, according to the research. Anyone intro'ing their baby to solid foods round about that time is pretty sure not to be doing much harm, and it's around that age that many obvious phsyical and behavioral changes take place too, or develop more - not least, hand-eye co-ordination, chewing, grasping.

But letting the baby take the lead with finger foods is easier than timing everything precisely - give them something fresh and nice at about six months and see what they do with it

They may not do much - no big deal

There has actually been no new research, just a different interpretation of the same data. Reserach says evidene of actual harm before 17 weeks (or 4 months) and no evidence of any benefit before 6 months.

No I'm not but the point I'm trying to make is that the official line on what we should and shouldn't do changes, therefore relying on this and nothing else as the basis for decison making is not for me.

I'm not saying it it irrelevant, I'm just saying that I try to interpret it with my individual child in mind. Tiktok said this much more eloquently than me.

witchandchips, that is exactly how I understood it too. Isn't that the reason that babyfood manufacturers have not been forced to change their "from 4 months" packaging.

When dd1 was born in 2004, I think I was advised to wean between 4-6 months. I weaned her at 5 and a half months and it was difficult, she didn't start eating properly until about 8 months. This went against the advise of dh's family all of whom tried to get me to wean at 4 months.

With dd2 I was advised to started weaning between 5-6 months. I foolishly believed that if I started weaning her earlier, it would be easier! So I weaned her at 5 months - or at least tried to - and she just never accepted a spoon. Four months later she still wasn't weaned, and I discovered baby led weaning, which helped.

With dc3, weaning is the one thing I dread as a parent. I will be waiting until the very last minute to start weaning, and this time I will not be getting stressed out about it!