Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Original poster

AAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

659 replies

AnarchyAunt · 30/09/2008 19:01

aaaaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhsplutter

Ah thats better.

I know, I know, I can do nothing at all about it, its not my business, I don't have to look...... But aaaarrrrgghhh.

OP posts:
VictorianSqualor · 05/10/2008 22:43

Yeah, and I'm Oxford, so that's not exactly nearby the rest of you

Natt82 · 05/10/2008 22:53

oooooh, have just had to bite my tongue. I was doing so well to not get into weaning rows in the 8 weeks I had been on bounty. And then I found there are other people who follow 6m guidelines - you guys are bad influences.

"If someone wants to wean early then it is up to them isnt it??? Cant see it doing an harm to anybody else" - I so wanted to type something, but cant think of anything that would rile them about links to child abuse.

and no one seems to answer my [I think valid] posts. sob. I am actually genuinely interested in other peoples thoughts on everything, but then I am just a nosey old cow

Natt82 · 05/10/2008 22:55

that was meant to say "wouldnt rile them!

Cwtch86 · 05/10/2008 22:55

Hi Stretchmarkqueen. I know you wrote it a few days ago but i'm Cwtch from bounty and randomly came across your comment about my post (about some people following guidelines when they change and others not).

I just wanted to check what you meant by it? My point wasn't that people shouldn't follow quidelines just because they change all the time, rather that they should do their own research into it. Personally I agree that the later you wean babies the better (and there's plenty of evidence to back that up, unlike the safety of early weaning)

Original poster
AnarchyAunt · 05/10/2008 22:58

They are the ones being rude really, but us MNers are hardcore and can take it!
And there's only so rude one can be on a forum that censors 'snatches' (still roffling!).

Anyway I showed my dm all this fiasco, and the blog, and she says....

"Oh snail climb Mount Fuji, but slowly, slowly"

She also says we were weaned as per the guidelines at the time (80s) at 4-5 months, and many of her friends thought that rather late.

OP posts:
stretchmarkqueen · 05/10/2008 23:07

Hi cwtch! I was generally refering to the fact that people would change their actions for some revised and updated guidelines, but not for others. ie. change for cot death, but not for weaning. I wasn't hitting on you personally, but rather what your post said.

"The interesting thing about the front / side / back sleeping debate is that even during the 1970's when they were advising sleeping on stomachs there was medical evidence that it was dangerous, yet they ignored this due to their assumptions. They assumed that on their backs babies could choke which would be more dangerous then sleeping on their stomachs but they were wrong. Since the guidelines changed to sleeping on their back the SIDS figures have fallen considerably."
Sorry to quote you but the point was interesting.

Although, it looks like people were reluctant then to follow updated guidelines as well.

Not sure if that makes sense, I have a muddled sleep-deprived brian at the moment.

Natt82 · 05/10/2008 23:08

where does the whole 4 hourly feeding come from?? Mums saying they had to wean as baby was feeding every 2.5 hours. whats wrong with that? My first son was formula fed and would often feed every 2 hours (we fed on demand) but I never thought he needed more - he was a baby that had a small stomach and needed frequent feeds of milk.

Where did this elusive 4 hours come from??!!

stretchmarkqueen · 05/10/2008 23:09

brain! I have a sleep-deprived brain!

SheSellsSeashellsByTheSeashore · 05/10/2008 23:10

Natt my DD1 fed every two hours for ages. She had trouble taking her milk. If I had weaned from the minute she started going two and half hours she would have been weaned from birth, I have no idea where that comes from.

High expectations of babies I suspect. Along with sleeping through by a certain age, sometimes it happens sometimes it doesnt. It just depends how lucky you are.

stretchmarkqueen · 05/10/2008 23:14

I don't get why babies are supposed to be sleeping through?? That expression, "sleeping like a baby", is very misleading. It implies that babies 'sleep soundly'>> WTF??

I WILL be going to the HV tomorrow to get ds weighed!! Wish me luck!! I will report back.

Natt82 · 05/10/2008 23:15

I made the mistake of trying to get my first son sleeping through - I introduced formula at 10pm and mucked up my breastfeeding, hence the formula feeding from 1 month. That was listening to "experienced" friends.

Glad I didnt listen to them any further. They were (are no longer current friends) the same people who gave their children tea in a bottle 3 times a day from 1 year old. And their 4 year old still used a bottle. and nappies. and dummies. And they tried telling me I was starving my healthy happy baby by waiting until 6 months. with friends like these....

bollywood · 05/10/2008 23:16

Will u guys FUCK OFF!! i dont use it often but when i do i am sick to bloody death of going on bounty for a bit of advice and seeing a war on weaning from ur bloody lot!!!! stop slagging off our members and ramming fucking guidelines down our throats!! GET OVER IT and how bout u all get off ur fat arses and tend to ur children who u all care so much about!! i swear u lot are on bounty or here every second! fair enuf u wanna alart people but just because someone doesn't take ur advise let it go!!! so why dont u go type up ur letters of complaint try to get bounty taken off (which it wont) and carry on with ur crusade - then realise we will keep on going by our insticts!! oh and u can slag me off and shout at this post as much as u want coz i only wanted to come on and say this!!!
U LOT ARE A BUNCH OF SAD WANKERS WITH NOTHING BETTER TO DO - heres a thought go out with ur kids!!

Original poster
AnarchyAunt · 05/10/2008 23:18

I never even bothered timing DD's feeds - I just went on the basis that she would feed when she needed it. At least every two hours for the frst eight weeks, except for maybe once every two or three days when she would sleep for six hours them wake up ravenous.

At six weeks she had a growth spurt and fed constantly (and I mean constantly) for three days. Had I had the lack of knowledge and crappy out-of-date HVs some of them are talking about on Bounty, she'd have been on formula at the least and possibly even weaned. Luckily I had plenty of friends who had good sense, and didn't bother going to see the HV 'cos I was too busy eating cake and reading feeding the baby

OP posts:
Original poster
AnarchyAunt · 05/10/2008 23:20

Oh hi!

Liberating being able to swear isn't it!

And yes I would go out with my DD but she is asleep . Oh and I am a size 8 btw.

OP posts:
SheSellsSeashellsByTheSeashore · 05/10/2008 23:20

bollywood my DDs are both tucked up bed. Not surprising really given the time. There was nearly a Harry Potter induced bedtime mishap with DD1 but unfortunately the TV broke so she went to bed

stretchmarkqueen · 05/10/2008 23:24

Are you a bit dim??

bollywood · 05/10/2008 23:25

yeah im well fick!!!

Natt82 · 05/10/2008 23:28

Both my boys have been fast asleep for 4 hours. I definately wouldnt want to go out with them now. (And they both had 2 hr naps today. The baby had another 2hrs this morning. And we had a lovely playdate with a friend and played playdoh. and sang. and did the alphabet/colours/shapes with my 2 year old. And did dinner. and the housework. and breastfed to boot.Its amazing how much you can get done in a day)

stretchmarkqueen · 05/10/2008 23:29

Sorry, was being flippant. It was difficult to read your post as it was very ranty and loud.

Have you actually read all the posts?? And the blog. Tis very good

scaredoflove · 05/10/2008 23:57

Has anyone pointed out on there about the back to sleep campaign??? They go on about they are only guidlines and didn't do us any harm but do they follow back to sleep and if so, why not weaning guidelines?? Sleeping on back was proven to reduce SIDs so guidelines changed (in between 2 of my kids, year apart) everyone followed those guidelines, I don't get why weaning isn't the same

Would love to know their answers to that

stretchmarkqueen · 05/10/2008 23:59

By stretchmarkqueen on Sun 05-Oct-08 23:07:23
Hi cwtch! I was generally refering to the fact that people would change their actions for some revised and updated guidelines, but not for others. ie. change for cot death, but not for weaning. I wasn't hitting on you personally, but rather what your post said.

"The interesting thing about the front / side / back sleeping debate is that even during the 1970's when they were advising sleeping on stomachs there was medical evidence that it was dangerous, yet they ignored this due to their assumptions. They assumed that on their backs babies could choke which would be more dangerous then sleeping on their stomachs but they were wrong. Since the guidelines changed to sleeping on their back the SIDS figures have fallen considerably."
Sorry to quote you but the point was interesting.

Although, it looks like people were reluctant then to follow updated guidelines as well.

Not sure if that makes sense, I have a muddled sleep-deprived brian at the moment.

I did on bounty as well, but it was removed by the feckers deleted.

stretchmarkqueen · 06/10/2008 00:00

Sorry that should be,

" By stretchmarkqueen on Sun 05-Oct-08 23:07:23
Hi cwtch! I was generally refering to the fact that people would change their actions for some revised and updated guidelines, but not for others. ie. change for cot death, but not for weaning. I wasn't hitting on you personally, but rather what your post said.

"The interesting thing about the front / side / back sleeping debate is that even during the 1970's when they were advising sleeping on stomachs there was medical evidence that it was dangerous, yet they ignored this due to their assumptions. They assumed that on their backs babies could choke which would be more dangerous then sleeping on their stomachs but they were wrong. Since the guidelines changed to sleeping on their back the SIDS figures have fallen considerably."
Sorry to quote you but the point was interesting.

Although, it looks like people were reluctant then to follow updated guidelines as well.

Not sure if that makes sense, I have a muddled sleep-deprived brian at the moment. "

Natt82 · 06/10/2008 00:00

I tried to. I asked twice if people ignored the changed guidelines on sleeping (and aslo smoking/drinking/carseats) but got ignored.

IRL I have met two people who stuck to 4 months and putting babies on front - they ignored all updated research (and yes, they also drank and smoked while pregnant and flaunt the car seat rules often with their under 10s too)

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/10/2008 00:09

Stirling work ladies

Babies are supposed to be wakeful.

It is pondered as to whether babies who sleep deeper/for longer are more at risk of cot death.

I'm afraid that any time I've read anything posted on Bounty i've found it far from literate and centred on selfishness or competitiveness. "Happy mum = happy baby" was invented by Bounty as a marketing ploy to sucker women into buying their products that, legally, should not be allowed to be marketed at babies of such an age.

VeniVidiVickiQV · 06/10/2008 00:13

Snort @ bollywood

Perhaps we should be ramming purees down your throat instead of guidelines? Maybe you'll find them more pallatable?