BLW and baby under 6 months

[PetitFilou1]

Ds2 (3 of 3) is 20 weeks and desperate for food. He has no tongue thrust reflex and can grab food and put it in his mouth (and has - several times) He can't sit up unsupported but neither could my other two children until much older (with dd it was 8 months). Will it really do much harm to start now?

and please...no one get the popcorn out .... he really does seem hungry.

However a babies stomach is only able to physically hold so much milk and when its full it doesnt necessarily mean the baby is full. Every baby is different and if I were you I would go with my instinct and stop getting so hung up on the "rules" of child rearing by which we are all so bound these days. How did mothers cope for 2000 years before all these experts come along? As regards allergies, there were very few people with food allergies when I was growing up and now they are in abundance, this could be to do with chemicals used in foods ( therefore use organic) but they could also have a lot to do with over cautious parents not introducing certain food types early enough. IMO 20 weeks is fine to start weaning.

You may want to re-read that first sentence jetsetbaby.

jetsetbaby - 2000 years ago I doubt there was any rush to wean, or pressures about babies sleeping through the night.

(In my head I imagine cavemen babywearing and co-sleeping and BF all night and not sitting their LOs down for 3 meals of puree a day because they had to get on with life!)

Oh, and the increase in allergies could be because of the things you mentioned. Or they could be because of the post-war early weaning trend...

jetsetbaby, I'm actually all for listening to your instincts as a mother but where weaning is concerned, instinct is such a red herring. There are concrete developmental signs that you can follow that suggest your child may be ready for solids. I will allow that instinct may play some part in knowing that your child is hungrier than before but you absolutely cannot know instinctively whether or not their gut has sealed and they are ready for solids. They are not "rules", they are guidelines and there for a reason.

So how can you know that ALL babies guts seal at the six month stage? Up until a few years ago 17 wks was an appropriate age to wean it was only as a result of one mother feeding her child ready brek which is full of salt and the subsequent unfortunate death of her child that led the experts to move the goalposts, mainly to cover their own backs. I agree there should be guidelines but there should also be some room for accomodating the individual baby. Re: the first sentance I guess I should have said satisfied not full and regarding the allergies matter I doubt the post war early weaning trend is to blame as the increase in allergies seems to be in the last 10 or so years.

jetsetbaby - check your facts Ready Brek was mentioned at the baby's inquest but this was not a cause of death (it has no salt in it) - the baby was dehydrated but he had been given gravy powder and instant mash and he was a lot younger than 17 weeks. This case had no bearing whatsoever on guidelines.

Your 'facts' on allergies - only increasing in the last 10 years - are way out.

Nim has given you the history of weaning guidance in the UK. It never was 17 weeks or 16 weeks - it was '4-6 mths' until 2003.

We know about babies' developmental stages and we know all babies do not develop at the same rate, still less on the same date. There is o benefit in giving solids before about 6 mths - this is not in the least controversial and is based on studies done all over the world. Babies do not develop, gut-wise, any sooner, no matter where they are in the world.

Parents will do what they want to do - most babies will be fine with earlier solids than the guidance states, but they will not be nourished better if this happens. Accomodate the individual, as you say - no problem! But do it as an informed choice, not from misunderstandings.

I didnt state that the allergies thing was a fact this is merely an opinion and maybe I should have checked the ready brek case in full before posting but as I was told this by a childcare proffessional I thought it to be accurate. I guess I am so passionate about this as it just seems like something else in the minefield of motherhood that has become the law and if you dare to deviate from the norm by say, weaning at 22 weeks - god forbid!!! You are looked down upon by others, I speak from personal experience!!

What's the point of an opinion, if you know it doesn't fit the facts?

Would it do either of you any harm to wait?

jetset: being 'looked down on' because of weaning at 22 weeks must be very rare - stats show most babies in the UK are on solids by that age, despite the guidance. However, some mothers will find something to criticise in others if they look hard enough, so I am not doubting your experience

Interesting that you heard the Ready Brek story from someone who should know better - it's a 10 year old story:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/jul/27/vikramdodd1

and follow ups to it included the corrected info that Ready Brek contains no salt (or hardly any - it would be fine to give to an older baby. Such is the way myths are born!

As I say - nothing whatsoever to do with UK revised weaning guidance.

jetset and others, you are NOT going to get anyone to listen to your opinion about weaning here, because if you don't conform and agree with the 6 month guideline, then you get shouted down here.

But I'm with you!!!

To the OP. do what you and your dp feel is right, you know your child best. Only don't tell all the 'not until 6 month BLW's' here!!

Why do people equate 'big baby' = 'hungry baby' If a baby under the age of 9 months is hungry, give them more milk!!! It gets me so cross!

I generally agree with TikTok- as usual, she presents a balanced view. However, just one quick thought- when you say TikTok that babies do not benefit from solids before 6 months, well, if babies develop each at a slightly different way, and if 6 months is an average, then surely some babies MIGHT benefit nutritionally from being weaned slightly early? I mean saying 'there is NO benefit of solids before 6 months' is really creating quite a polarized view of things, and also not allowing for individual cases where weaning may actually be beneficial (for various reasons). Anyway. Just a thought. I really don't want to enter into this very very heated debate (and actually I fail to see why this matter arouses so much passion!)

oh ffs cass, plenty of BLWers on here have said that if the baby can do it, then the baby can do it. but don't let that dissuade you from having an argument that no-one else is having.

Ellideb- why does it get you so cross though? I really don't get why people get so annoyed / heated up by this (genuinely interested). Also, surely when you say 'if a baby is hungry under the age of 9 months give them more milk' you meant under the age of 6 months?! Or do you think that milk is enough / nutritionally adequate on its own for a 9 month old? (well maybe you do believe it actually... I've heard stranger things on MN)

Traditionally babies often weren't weaned til 9 months. I don't think babies under 6 months do benefit that much nutrtionally. DS is 8 months and much of what goes in comes out pretty much undigested. [bleurgh!]

I think if someone wants to wean early they are going to do it regardless of what the advice says but the guidelines are there for a reason and have been based on plenty of research. The whole argument about it being 'fine' to wean early a few years ago could be equated to people saying - "I/my child was put to sleep on my front and I/they didn't die from SIDS" - that's what the recommendations were back then but more current research has shown that it is much safer to put a baby on its back to sleep - just as current research has shown that it is better for babies to wait until 6 months... I'm sure there were a few people continuing to put their babies to sleep on their front when the new recommendations came in for that so it may be a few years before everyone decides to accept the new guidelines on weaning...

I don't have a problem with those that decide to wean early, provided they are aware of the real risks. if they say, yes I know erly this could cause problems for my baby later in life but in light of xyz its worth the risk, then fine.

what annoys me is when people use anecdotal evidence or the wrong signs (like night waking) to justify it. it is, of course, still their choice, but to then have a go at people for trying to give accurate advice is just unpleasant.

oh and nobody ever had a go at me for weaning at 23 weeks and I think if the OP's DC were sitting with minimal help they'd be saying go ahead!

I have a very big baby...10lbs 1oz at birth and at 5 months old is now over 21lbs. He was off the top of the charts at 12 weeks and he has dropped to between the 98 and 99.9 centiles in the red books. He is exclusively breastfed and has yet to sleep through the night !!! (But we co-sleep so the sleeping is not a big deal)

He can sit up on his own and can pick up small items and place in his mouth and he has lost his tongue thrust. I am sure he will take to food like a duck to water...but all that aside.

With possible health risk on one side and no health benefit on the other, we'll be waiting another month before introducing (BLW) solids.

Maria, I am going on the research which states there is no benefit in giving solids before 6 mths...that's the result when babies' health is looked at in relation to their introduction to solids. The ones who had solids sooner than six months were not healthier than the ones who had solids after that date. It comes out as a specific date 'cos that's how the research has to be - you have to pick a date and then see if the subjects of the study fall on one side or the other.

Traditionally, mothers have been told their babies need solids for the sake of their health before this time. The research does not support this.

But it's perfectly possible, I think, for babies to show signs of being able to cope with solids a little before six months. I don't think there's much evidence that they will be harmed if parents respond to this sensitively - if the baby can hold and eat the solids he's probably ok. Before about six months he won't manage much, really. But as for it doing him good, nutritionally, I doubt it very much.

Hope you get the distinction! I am not contradicting myself, I don't think

cass, you are being tedious. No one is shouting anyone down. People explaining the guidelines have been at pains to allow for individual variations. I think it's a shame if people's informed contributions are dismissed as 'shouting people down'.

So if your personal opinion is that it's silly to put babies in car seats - you think they are perfectly safe on your lap - after all you've never met anyone who's come to any harm that way - then it's fine to do it? After all, it's only guidelines - and I have to say that I travelled many miles in the boot of an estate car as a child and I'm fine!

maria2007 It gets me so cross because people aren't prepared to wait until 6mths before they begin weaning. What is the huge hurry? Babies aren't meant to sleep through the night, they've only got tiny tummies. Particluarly if they are BF.

I did mean what I said about giving them milk to satisfy their hunger up to 9mths because before then a baby doesn't realise that food satisfy's hunger and they use it only to play with (BLW perspective)it is only after a few months of playing with their food do babies understand that they can eat to fill themselves up. Milk should be their main source of nourishment up until they are a year old.

lol seeker we used to go on holiday with my wee sister and i lying in sleeping bags on top of the suitcases in the back of the estate car. can you imagine? we waved at lorry drivers all the way.

Since "moral support" is MN philosophy.

The question petitfilou asked was will it do harm to start offering food to a 20 week old?

The "supportive" answer to such a question might read:

Petitfilou current guidelines suggest waiting until 24 weeks is best. However, only a few years ago the same guidelines suggested it was of no harm to begin solids between 16 and 24 weeks. Depending on your age you may remember a time with solids were offered at an even earlier age but most frown on those times. There is no law that states you may not begin solids when your insticts see fit. However, I would suggest if you are concerned the best advice would be that of a pediatric health care provider who can review your particular child's personal medical history and based on that give you proper advice.

Best wishes to you and your ds.