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'm unconvinced that a baby who can put something in his/her mouth and swallow it is neccessarily ready to digest it or that it won't harm him if he does. I'd love to hear what evidence there is for this idea, attractive though it sounds. There is, after all, epidemiological evidence that exposure to some foods before 6 months may be harmful.

lol. ds2 would love to eat pebbles/soil/bricks. Given the chance to sneak away he can be found contentedly gnawing the toilet seat. He is also an expert at crawling under ds1's chair to hunt for interesting crumbs.

mybaby, I agree with you that physical ability to eat isn't always going to guarantee a lack of harm. For example, a child might competently pick up and eat something which they're allergic to (although interestingly, allergic children do seem to avoid stuff they react to) or which is poisonous.

But it's unlikely to be a coincidence that most babies learn the physical skills at approximately the same time as it's safe for them to start eating.

There're good evolutionary reasons for that: in a harsh environment, babies who learned the physical skills before their guts were ready would harm themselves and not thrive. Similarly, babies who learned the physical skills only after their bodies started to need food wouldn't do well, because they'd have had to rely on having the food somehow processed and then patiently fed to them.

There won't be a formal study on this in individual children until there's a method of measuring gut readiness, in which case it would be a relatively simple thing to look at. Very interesting too. I hope someone does this- it'd be so useful for parents.

1. By 6mths babies can forcibly push food away which people may construe as them not liking it- not the case, its just something different.

and babies shove a weaning spoon away too! babies go through hungry and not hungry days , like grown ups. so if they are too weak and little before 6 months to push the food away, that's ok?>

1. With baby led weaning they get most of it on the floor instead of getting the calories from all the food iyswim.

right, becasue at 6 months, they are suddenly needing to get all calories from food, and milk is secondary, again what about a baby eating puree, who dribbles it out, and most ends up on the bib, in the hair etc...

1. I don't see the logic in increasing milk feeds to the extent that the baby spends more time eating than learning to play and do other things.

i have met no babies at all who are being fed every hour and minute they are awake to the detriment of their normal development. when a baby is feeding, they can still look around, see and hear what is going on.

1. They learn to eat with fingers but then refuse to eat with a spoon because they have never had one put in their mouth (ok maybe for yoghurt, but not well practiced). This happened to a colleague who has looked after 2 babies weaned this way and both had trouble eating with spoons later.

most babies struggles with spoons and cutlery regardless.. especially if you start early, i doubt any 4 -5 months olds can hold and use a spoon or fork

1. Teaching children to graze all day with finger food is fine until they get to school. Then their stomachs can't hold much but they have set eating times and can't get enough calories in within these set times.

BLW is not about grazing, it is about offering a child 'real' food, at mealtimes, not just shoving a carrot stick at them randomly.

1. Most childcare facilities would struggle to supervise all the babies eating this way, so if you want to go back to work it will make life harder for the child in the long run. They have set times for feeding as well.

again, children who are BLWed eat breakfast lunch and dinner too. no more supervision required, than someone sat next to a child spooning food in.

1. From personal experience I have suffered no harm from being weaned far earlier than 4mths.

that means nothing in the context of this debate!!

1. There appears to be far more intollerences to food/allergies to food in children now than in previous generations- my personal view is that its because they are exposed to food later.

i think that doctors are better at diagnosing it now than 30 years ago. when intolerances did not exist

1. Taste doesn't develop properly until around 6mths, so by weaning at 4mths its more likely texture they don't like so you keep trying it.

really/?????? so therefore what is the point of weaning at 4 months, when they cannot taste properly

10. I would consider it less of a choking hazard to have my baby used to swallowing small lumps, before biting larger amounts off and swallowing it by mistake. (I almost choked as a 7yo with the same scenario)
11. If you give finger foods at first and they throw it, then they end up not trying it, how do you establish their likes and dislikes.

by offering food again, and again. if babies start with real food, they become IME, more adept at dealing with the lumps. DD got very good at bringing food back into her mouth to rechew if the lumps were too big, the only children i know who had problems with lumps were those weaned on puree only. puree weaned babies make their likes and dislikes known too, throwing their food, clamping mouth shut etc.

12. Children will eat favourite things first and could become full up before they try everything when they have graduated onto mixed meals/ variety on one plate. By blending several veg and meat they get all nutrients required instead of selected ones.

research has shown, in toddlers, that if lef to their own devices they will choose a balanced diet. mushing all the food so it tastes of everything does not allow the child to taste each thing, and get more of an idea of what they like., after all, as an adult, when i eat a roast dinner, i eat the bits sepertaely, not together, so i can taste all teh different tastes and textures. BLW allos the baby to develop their own likes and dislikes and to enjoy each bit of food they taste

IMO

I weaned at 6 months. I'd point out that my baby stopped sleeping through round about this time and didn't start to sleep through again until after his first birthday.

Lulu you are a lot more patient than me!

I haven't read the thread... but in reply to the OP, IMVHO there is lots of conflicting research/professional advice out there, and it is pretty hard to wade through all the books/papers/advice and reach an analytical conclusion as to which way to go when you are a new mother with plenty of other things on your mind.

There isn't an international gold standard one best way to feed your baby or wean...

I'm gonna have a go at tori's opinions, too

1. By 6mths babies can forcibly push food away which people may construe as them not liking it- not the case, its just something different.

True. But so what? Spoonfeeding purees at 4 mths does not stop this perfectly normal behaviour; by 6 mths they can and do push the spoon away.

1. With baby led weaning they get most of it on the floor instead of getting the calories from all the food iyswim.

True. But so what? We're surely not worried about the waste of food, when overall it's really not a huge amount. Unless you spoonfeed your kids until they are five or six you are going to get food on the floor. Chill

1. I don't see the logic in increasing milk feeds to the extent that the baby spends more time eating than learning to play and do other things.

Eh? You are assuming that to meet a baby's appetite for milk the mother will have to prevent the baby from learning and playing. If she gives purees from four months, this will take time, too, both in preparation and giving it and clearing up afterwards - in your book, this is a poor use of time as the baby could be playing or learning.

1. They learn to eat with fingers but then refuse to eat with a spoon because they have never had one put in their mouth (ok maybe for yoghurt, but not well practiced). This happened to a colleague who has looked after 2 babies weaned this way and both had trouble eating with spoons later.

Oh that proves it then - you have heard of two babies who took a while to use a spoon . Babies all need to learn to use cutlery and their fingers, and these normal developmental skills happen when the opportunity is given to them. If we are to believe you on this point, one could counter with suggesting that babies who are spoonfed will take longer to manage to eat with fingers - and actually that statement has more evidence behind it.

1. Teaching children to graze all day with finger food is fine until they get to school. Then their stomachs can't hold much but they have set eating times and can't get enough calories in within these set times.

What utter and preposterous rubbish - BLW at about six months has nothing to do with 'grazing all day with finger food until school age' - what have you been reading? The scenario you paint of a shrunken stomach is just daft.

1. Most childcare facilities would struggle to supervise all the babies eating this way, so if you want to go back to work it will make life harder for the child in the long run. They have set times for feeding as well.

Again, you can have set meal times with weaning at 6 mths and using finger foods.

1. From personal experience I have suffered no harm from being weaned far earlier than 4mths.

And your point is........???

1. There appears to be far more intollerences to food/allergies to food in children now than in previous generations- my personal view is that its because they are exposed to food later.

There is absolutely no evidence that giving food early to children reduces the risk of allergy and intolerance - none whatsoever. Your personal view has as much validity as a personal view saying the moon is made of green cheese. The evidence is all the other way - that later weaning means less intolerance and allergy, with sound physiolgical reasons why this might be so. Today's children are not exposed to food later - widespread weaning at 6 mths (as opposed to 4 mths) has not even happened yet. Latest surveys show that virtually all babies have had solid foods before 6 mths.

1. Taste doesn't develop properly until around 6mths, so by weaning at 4mths its more likely texture they don't like so you keep trying it.

Incoherent rubbish. Your two phrases here i) taste doesn't develop properly and ii) so you keep trying it have nothing to do with each other. I have no idea when taste develops 'properly' but I would guess it is a gradual thing ...babies of 4 mths are perfectly capable of distinguishing different tastes, anyway.

10. I would consider it less of a choking hazard to have my baby used to swallowing small lumps, before biting larger amounts off and swallowing it by mistake. (I almost choked as a 7yo with the same scenario)

You know so little, tori, you really do. On your experience, we should give babies purees until age 7 years old. Adults need to stay with babies when they are eating, and biting larger bits off causes the baby to gag (usually) rather than choke...

11. If you give finger foods at first and they throw it, then they end up not trying it, how do you establish their likes and dislikes.

Weaning at 4 mths does not stop babies throwing food when they are older (unless you stay with the purees) and you deal with that as you deal with any other unwanted but developmentally normal behaviour...and you have already said with foods your baby seems to dislike, you just keep trying (which is actually the only sensible thing you have said).

12. Children will eat favourite things first and could become full up before they try everything when they have graduated onto mixed meals/ variety on one plate. By blending several veg and meat they get all nutrients required instead of selected ones.

Weaning is a process, and it doesn't matter if babies don't get everything at every meal. Say, if you give your 7 mth old some brocolli, spuds and meat, he may take a little bite of all of them, and eat more of the brocolli. That's ok - so what? Next time he might eat more of the meat and spuds. He is learning to discriminate with taste and texture, too, and appearence, in a way he just can't when everything is pureed into a shapeless, texture less, single colour slop.

Not one of your 'views' stands up to even a cursory examination, tori.

Fab post tiktok.

Thank you beansprout It's good to be able to use mumsnet like this, as tori is likely to come on and read through these carefully argued and evidence-based points and see how ill-founded her personal views are. She will come on and post her thanks, and her clear understanding, I am sure.

Or maybe not

thank the lord for tiktok and lulu you are so much more patient than me I would have just written tori that is a load of old rubbish

Ds2 is 4 months now and I am just so relieved that MN exists sometimes. Without it, I would probably be shovelling mush into his mouth at this point!

Thank God you got to this thread first, Lulu and Tiktok.

I can now just say, "Ditto what Lulu and Tiktok said"

Tiktok - Your statment earlier -

"The evidence is all the other way - that later weaning means less intolerance and allergy, with sound physiolgical reasons why this might be so. Today's children are not exposed to food later - widespread weaning at 6 mths (as opposed to 4 mths) has not even happened yet. Latest surveys show that virtually all babies have had solid foods before 6 mths."

Sorry, not having a go (honestly) but that statement strikes me as a bit confused. On one hand you are saying that the evidence is that weaning at 6mths means less allergies but on the other hand you are saying that most children don't do this and there is no large survey which suggests to me that the evidence you speak off has not been proven. Is there really no new evidence of the effects of later weaning?

I am surprised that it wouldn't be possible to do further research/survies, given that many mothers on here are very keen to hold off until 6mths? We can't be a little oasis of sanity surely - there must be others out there doing the right thing? (Well, I know we can't be as I didn't know about MN when I weaned DS2 at 6mths)

How do you get the message across then? How do we get the same effect as the effect that was achieved in changing the way babies sleep to drastically cut cot-death rates? Is that weaning is much more complex than which way your child sleeps. Is that allergies and intolerances are also affected by a whole host of other enviromental and genetic factors and that therefore the message of the benefits of later weaning are diluted?

I reiterate I am not having a go at anybody or questioning the legitimacy of the message. I am just wondering if more published work would help to reinforce the guidelines (media interest is always higher in new studies than going over old ground) and that the research could in fact be done now on those who have followed the guidelines.

Niecie, there's clear evidence that weaning before 4 months increases the risk of allergies. From 4-6 months the studies vary wildly in their conclusions. The most likely reason for this inconsistency is, as you say, that allergy is hugely complicated and the end point of many many factors.

The best way to sort it our would be a randomised trial, but very few parents would agree to wean their baby a couple of months early or late simply on the toss of a coin. Add to that the fact that in the UK only about 1% of babies are weaned at 6 months and you can see why it's hard to set up a study that will easily clarify it all.

The work of gut physiologists suggests that the type of nutrition babies get early on (breastmilk, formula, solids) plays a crucial role in programming their gut immunity, probably for life.

Allergy is only one aspect of this immunity. Others are infection (and we know that anything other than exclusive breastfeeding carries a risk of being hospitalised for infection) and auto-immune/inflammatory diseases (gut flora being implicated in various adult conditions such as Crohns disease).

Another issue is growth in early life which seems to "programme" the baby's metabolism. There's evidence that early growth patterns affect a person's risk of heart disease later in life, and the main determinant of these growth patterns is, again, nutrition.

So you see, evidence from lots of different sources is pointing to early nutrition as an important health factor, but proving it in black and white is going to take a lot longer. In the meantime there's a question of how to manage the uncertainty.

We know that babies don't need food before 6 months. So a pretty obvious way of addressing all these unquantifiable risks is simply to start weaning after that time.

Sorry, an essay! But I feel very strongly that this is a very complex issue and reducing it to quick soundbites would mean distorting it, which would be a terrible disservice to people looking at this thread for information.

Are only 1% of babies weaned at 6 months?!!!!

Yes, a big (nearly 16 000 babies) study published recently in the UK found that 1.2 % of the babies studied were weaned at or after 6 months.

We're a bunch of weirdo freaks here on mumsnet.

i much prefer being able to say, 'what hunker said' far less tiring for my stubby little fingers

In reply to OP - started at 23 weeks when DS stole my banana and ate it. Am now offering a mix of finger foods and veg purees, and giving as much milk as ever. Banana still the favourite though. He likes me to load up a spoon with mashed banana and baby rice and give it to him. He grabs it with both hands, concentrates hard and shoves it in his mouth, or sometimes his ear.

I really love MN for making the research and guidelines really accessible to me. I now feel informed in the decisions I make and I think they will always be in line with guidelines. Im a nurse and so for me, adhering to research findings seems natural.

Lordy! I had no idea! Ds1 didn't want grub until nearer 7 months. I am a freak of the highest order!!

also, weaning is a process, it is not like the minute a baby hits 6 months or so, they should eat 3 meals and 2 snacks a day.. it is a moveable feast, as it were, many babies don;t get into eating lots of food until 12 months.. we have our whole lives to eat meals, why not make weaning a gradual and pleasurable thing? rather than getting going the minute a baby seems less satisfied on milk...

I think it is advised that it should even be as gradual as one meal a day, then 7-9 months two max and at about a year 3...