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.

Sorry, but rofl at the idea that 'the best advice would be that of a paediatric health care provider'.

If you mean a GP or HV, a quick look through the archives will tell you that this is categorically not the case.

A paediatric dietitian/nutritionist maybe, but you can hardly demand a referral to one just to discuss the correct age for weaning, when the advice is out there to be read!

Look, it was never 16 weeks. Or 24 weeks. It was 4-6 mths for many years, and then for the last 6 years it has been 6 mths...if you are going to write a script for people, at least get the facts correct!

"health care providers" can't see inside a baby's gut either!

What I REALLY REALLY don't understand is what advantage people think there is in weaning early. If there is the slightest possibility that it might cause any harm to their baby, why do it?

AnarchyAunt I was unaware that Petitfilou told her location and since MN is quite the global forum (i've encountered lovely people from Singapore to Argentina and all parts in between on here) I selected a very universal description of someone in her community who would might be able to offer her advice. I'm surprised you find that funny.

And tiktok, the last time I checked a month had an average of 4 weeks so 4 months would equal 16 weeks. On the same vein 6 months would equal 24 weeks. Do you dispute this fact? It's just simple math: 4 times 4 equals 16 and 4 times 6 equals 24. Easily confused, I suppose.

And seeker, a "health care provider" most certainly can "see inside a baby's gut" if by chance that health care provider were a specialist and peforming an upper GI endoscopy. I'm sure you heard of such a procedure.

Thank you for asking me to explain further my post. I am sure this will give Petitfilou an even greater understanding. It's all about support, after all.

Have a wonderful day.

An average month has over 4 weeks in it! 6 months is 26 weeks (half of 52), not 24 weeks!

DO you dispute this fact?!

Oh, and 4 months is 17.3 weeks.

52 divided by 12 multiplied by 4 = 17.3333333 recurring.

To summarise, 16 weeks is not 4 months.

24 weeks is not 6 months.

I did use the word "average" not exact and I'll stand by that without issue. Bangandthedirtisgone you've given a very nice description of exactly how to calculate a true month and year. Very informative. I'm sure that will come in handy to Petitfilou as well. Good job.

Twilight, I despair. 16 weeks is not four months. Do the maths. It is not even an 'average' month. Don't talk to me as if I was the one being stupid, please.

None of this confusion may be your fault, of course. You may have been absent on the days they explained this elementary stuff at school, for all I know.

The guidance was 4-6 mths, and this was worked out in these terms because of the research (at the time) showed this window....if it was 16-24 weeks it would have said so.

Ditto 6 mths, which is the newer guidance.

Twilight - are you really suggesting you get a specialist to perform an upper GI endoscopy to see if your baby is ready for weaning though?

Whats wrong with just accepting that to be absolutely certain their gut is ready for solids, you should wait til 6m/26 weeks?

No, there aren't four weeks in an average month at all.

Did you mean there are roughly four weeks in a month?

That makes more sense but it doesn't change the fact that you are totally wrong about guidance being based on 16 and 24 weeks.

I'd stop now if I were you, before you embarass yourself further.

LOL at this thread
it's a corker

You ladies are too funny. You would fine fault with a gold brick and argue with a Tasmanian devil, I believe. That's all good. The world is a better place because of it's plethora of opinions.

However, I am far from embarrased by my posts. My answers have been sincere.

AnarchyAunt in response to your post, Seeker commented that a health care provider could not look at the gut when in fact a health care provider can, if necessary. Nothing in my post suggested one should be required. It was all simply a clarification.

As for how many weeks in a month, this topic is getting old. I said "on average" you consider 4 weeks equal to 1 month. I assume you have all been pregnant at some point. Did you not consider yourself 3 months along when you reached 12 weeks thus on the brink of that glorious second trimester? I did. But if you didn't, that's fine too.

Really, how is pecking me to death supportive to anyone. However if you need an outlet you'll do me no harm.

Best regards.

i think seeker and prtty much everyone knows a paed can examine the gastrointestinal tract of a baby with the correct equipment,

however, you would not get a paed doing so to check if a baby was ready for solid food, it is hard enough to get a referral for other things!

so you have to look at outside signs of readiness, such as loss of the tongue thrust reflex, to hopefully mirror what is happening inside , rather than relying on some notion of instinct.

twilight - i know you were pregnant for 9 months - so were you pregnant for 36 weeks, or nearer 40?

"I assume you have all been pregnant at some point. Did you not consider yourself 3 months along when you reached 12 weeks thus on the brink of that glorious second trimester?"

No, I considered myself 12 weeks along.

HTH.

OK I think this is getting ridiculous... I think twilight is trying to make a wider point, so the number of weeks/days in a month etc is really not of any importance to this discussion

But what IS important is the notion that you CAN cause problems by weaning too early but NOT by waiting a couple of weeks, and arguing the toss over weeks is looking for a way to justify weaning before 6 months. And really, what's the hurry? If they are hungry before then, give them more milk, the teeny amount of nutriion they would get from food at that stage would be negligible.
Why are some in such a hurry to get them on solids as if it's some kind of competition?

Twilight presumed to write a little speech, suggesting very strongly what a 'supportive' post in response to the OP would be - sounding confident and authoritative. I pointed out that in writing a little speech like this she should have got her facts right....which she didn't. She then revealed the extent of her ignorance of simple maths with a load of bollox about 'averages'.

In the grand scheme of things, it matters very little whether we equate 16 weeks with 4 mths or not.

But if anyone is going to get on their high horse (like Twilight did) and tell others what 'supportive' sounds like, with information that sounds confident and authoritative, then it's a good idea to get the facts right.

Otherwise you risk sounding like a knob - don't you agree? Twilight, you should be giving thanks for the narrow squeak...good gracious, you did indeed almost sound like a knob, and I saved you

i really thikn that it is bizarre, that those who are anti BLW or anti waiting until around 6 months can find nothing to back up their arguemtn except that 'it never did me any harm', 'the guidelines are always changing' ,'use your isntincts' when there are good, clear cut , compelling reasons to wean around 26 weeks, and not to wean at 17 weeks.

and yet persist in saying that instinct is better than the WHO /NHS/ DOH research and information.

note i say weaning around 26 weeks. some babies will be ready at 23 or 27 etc.

if you look at all the research and info and then make a decision to wean at 18 or 20 weeks or 32 weeks, then that is entirely your look out... but it is ridicolous to expect that a question regarding weaning will get only the answer,' your baby you know best, use your instincts'

the OPs DS isshowing some but not all signs of readiness, i personally, would perservere with increased milk for a while longer, just to see, but the OP can certainly choose to start weaning now, but whether it will be BLW , is debatable.

i hope the thread has been informative

Nobody has ever told me what people think the advantage is in early weaning - please will somebody enlighten me?

Jeez I wouldn't want to be enemies with you lot!!

Petitfilou did you ever start that MMR thread yet?

Now then twilight was most definately taking the piss to wind you up - glad you bit for her

Basically wean your babies whenever you see fit, be it a 4 week month or a 5 week month you're counting by.

So, CaptainCaveman, the whole thing about what a supportive post should be was a wind-up, eh?

Then she really is a knob!

Er....what's a five week month?

Jeeez, there are some numerically-challenged people on these boards

Unless that too is a clumsy attempt at wind-up, of course....

OK since you're asking. I plead guilty, I started weaning my boy (very mildly & gradually) at 23 & a half weeks. Reason was, he was over 17 pounds at that point, was showing great interest in food, seemed dissatisfied by milk feeds. And also was sitting well while supported, had lost the tongue-thrush reflex, and basically: I thought he was hungry (and DON'T tell me to give him more milk, I'm not stupid, I tried & he still seemed hungry). So I tried a bit of baby rice with EBM as an experiment & he gobbled it up & attacked the spoon as if there were no tomorrow. So at that point I thought, wow, he seems ready. I continued with a bit of pear, a bit of mild this or that (in tiny quantities) & now that he's 25 weeks I'm still going on at a very slow pace. Those are the reasons. I'm absolutely positive he's completely fine, and is ready for weaning. So sue me.

I thought my DS was ready at 24 weeks, but waited as he had a cold, and then I wanted to reintroduce some caffeine into my diet before we started the solids, so it was 25 weeks, 5 days when we did. Of course as we'd decided to do BLW, he would only have eaten if he'd been ready, which is a major advantage. I think a couple of weeks either side depending on the baby showing real signs of readiness is fine, but as there is no advantage to starting early, I don't think I'd start at 20 weeks even if he was showing the signs.