Just a note re "I did x and mine are fine"

[hunkermunker]

If the children to whom you refer aren't 85 (at least), it's not all that bright a statement.

That's all.

Hunker I agree with you 100%, if there's one thing that annoys me the most it's that statement. Oh how I hate it.

HM but strictly speaking if you're talking about your children now then that statement is correct if they are fine. I really understand your frustration but I think you expect too much of people posting on forums, they just say what's happening in their lives at the time and trying to be helpful. I'm not being controversial, just thinking you're a bit hard. Everyone posts about their experiences. Ok for you as you've done more research etc to point things out but don't be too hard on others.

Without sounding condescending though it comes over as so dense to say something like that.

Just like saying I jumped off a building and was ok so that's alright, it's just not logical and has no real statistic behind it.

Exactly JodieO.
One of the things that should be stressed with babies being weaned early is the health risks in adulthood, these arguments then become a moot point, but just because you survived something doesn't mean there is no risk.

It may be dense but not everyone reads evrything and relies on HVs, MILs etc. Go to a clever forum and it won't bother you to mix with stupid people.

I took the pill for ten years without getting a blood clot/ PE etc. The condition I didn't know about then means that taking it was incredibly dangerous and I could have died at any moment. I could say that there is no risk to taking the pill with this condition, go on support groups and tell people to take it if they want because I did for ten years and I'm OK, I could continue to use it because I've been OK so far.

But all this is over looking that I've suffered from transients for the last 14 years (around the time I started taking the pill) but hey, I just fall over and come round eventually, there's no lasting damage

The thing that annoys me is the total lack of understanding of research and statistics. When people say "I weaned my 2 babies at 3 months and they're ok", it's not just that you don't know whether they'll be ok but the fact that the sample size is 2, tiny.

The point is proper research is done with huge sample sizes which mean that differences have to be statistically significant in order to detect a trend properly, i.e. those who have done A are more likely to get outcome B. Stupid people just think "well I did A and I didn't get B so the research must be wrong!"

When my ds was a baby the only way he'd go to sleep was on his tummy ergo 'my ds slept on his tummy and he's ok'.

However, I wouldn't say that statement to advise someone else to do it because I'm aware of the risks that are associated with it. I'd say that ds slept on his tummy and thankfully was ok but current guidelines state etc etc.

People use the 'I weaned dc at 3 months and they're ok' as a way to discredit the research and make out that the risks are a load of piffle. That can be dangerous.

Hunker is always right.
It helps that she actually researches her facts and doesnt cherry pick ones to suit her argument and ignores the ones that dont.

FWIW - i exclusively b/fed to at least 26 weeks.
I started weaning mine on to solids at no earlier than 26 weeks.
I used age and weig

GAh! tab clicked over to post message....the full post should be....

Hunker is always right.
It helps that she actually researches her facts and doesnt cherry pick ones to suit her argument and ignores the ones that dont.

FWIW - i exclusively b/fed to at least 26 weeks.
I started weaning mine on to solids at no earlier than 26 weeks.
I used age and weight appropriate car seats and placed them in the correct positions in my car.
I slept with my childrens cot in our bedroom for at least 6 months.
I laid my children down to sleep on their backs, and if they were unhappy on their backs, I'd put them on their sides supported by bolsters.
I kept the room they slept in at 18-20 degrees.

I didnt think doing any of the above was a particular hardship. My two children were wildly different in terms of health and personality. I did it anyway coz you just Dont Know if yours will be one of the stats, do you?

if you strip it all back to basics, on balance, it is better to wait until around 26 weeks, surely that is reason enough to wait?

I think a lot of issues around early weaning are to do with our expectations of what babies should do.

they should sleep through, so if they don;t fill them with food to help them sleep

also , food is so intwined with being a treat that some parents feel that if they don't give food they are depriving their children

the topic is an interesting one as it can be so divisive.. but i don;t get why the 'back to sleep' advice was so roundly accepted as being safer, yet weaning advice is often dismissed as changing all the tinme so the new advice does not matter

I hear so many conflicting reasons for early weaning too.

Eg: Baby's very small so needs a bit of help v Baby's on the big side and isn't satisfied with only milk.

So if a baby's small they need weaning, and if they're big....are the 'average' ones ok?

so would you rather i weaned early or introduced formula - to lessen the burden of being wholly responsible for my babies nutrition?

'say' I AM going to do one of these?

Surely giving your baby formula is a million times better than weaning early????

I had amoebic dysentery. Didn't do me any harm.

can we have a note re 'on advice of HV i..' too?

Formula will do less damage to a baby who's gut isn't ready to digest anything else than puree will.

Although it does amaze me (maybe I'm biased from losing a baby) that people don't want the burden of caring for their child. You carry them for 9 (or 6/7 for some of us) and then want to give them over to someone else for possibly the easiest part of it all. I couldn't be bothered with formula or pureeing food, I'm far too lazy!

but i don;t get why the 'back to sleep' advice was so roundly accepted as being safer, yet weaning advice is often dismissed as changing all the tinme so the new advice does not matter

I think precisely because the advice seems to change a lot is why quite a few parents either stick with the old advice or just do want they want anyway.

I also think that because any effects of early weaning will possibly not be seen until later life then some people do not take it as seriously. Whereas with the back to sleep advice, well, not putting your baby on it's back to sleep could have an immediate and much more serious effect than early weaning.

sorry that first bit was from lulumama's post, should have put it in speech marks

But weaning advice doesn't change a lot. It was made 4 months in the 70s, 4-6 months in the 90s and then 6 months more recently. 100 years ago it was 9-12 months and when formula became popular after the war it wasn't capable of sustaining a baby so early (very early) weaning started.

tinkerbellesmum i am truly sorry for your loss

breastfeeding is something that some people find harder than others...i do feed my babies and know it is best for them

I enjoy mothering them much much more when i no longer am their sole source of nutrition

that makes me far from perfect in your eyes but i do try...

in the 90's we were told 14 weeks

i had 3 babies in 90's

Thanks for your sympathy, but it was three years ago.

My second daughter was born at 31 weeks so I know about how hard breastfeeding can be. I was glad when I was able to get her onto solids and shift some of the responsibility from me but at the end of the day I knew I only had six months (give or take by the time she had actually gotten onto the breast) to be totally responsible for her feeds. I didn't always enjoy feeding her but I made the choice to have her so it was my responsibility.

In 1994 the COMA report said that babies should not eat sold food before 4 months. If after this time anyone told you before four months (17 weeks) then they were misinforming you.