I just don't get why people think a few spoonfuls of baby rice or veg can stop a baby feeling hungry and make it sleep more?

[sweetkitty]

Time and time again on here there are threads about parents having very hungry babies that are BFing very frequently or taking 9ozs bottles so the parents are either debating weaning early or have been told by HVs to wean early.

How can anyone think that a few spoonfuls of wallpaper paste baby rice or pureed carrot will satisify their baby better than breast milk or formula milk?

As adults if we want to go on a diet and lose weight we give up the full fat dairy and things like rice and veg are on the menu instead. There are very few foods that have more calories than BM.

Have we as women lost the ability to believe that a baby, however big and hungry they are can grow and be satisfied with just breastmilk (or FM) until 6 months? There's so many threads about hungry babies not seeming to be satisfied with just milk and needing proper food.

I have fed 3 babies myself up to 25 weeks on just milk, the middle one started out at 9lbs 3ozs, was 10lbs at a week old and constantly attached to me for about 6 months.

With regards sleep and weaning, IME it does absolutely nothing to improve sleep, DD3 is on 2 meals a day right now, is having a savoury protein meal and fruit as well as finger foods and it has done nothing to improve her sleep. She wakes as is her sleep cycle and when she does she searches for Mummys boob to make sure everything is as it should be in her world, if she finds Daddy's elbow she will let me know. I think her waking in the night is about comfort not nutrition so again I don't understand the "my 15 week old is waking at night shall I give baby rice posts?"

Sorry about the long post just my thoughts PS if anyone CAN get my DD3 to sleep through all suggestions welcome

My HV adviced me to start solids for DS at 4 months, because he was "hungry" and it would "help him sleep". In hindsight I know that he was hungry because I had a MASSIVE over supply and fast let down, and DS was pulling off a lot because he hated it. The lovely Tiktok helped me solve that problem

I totally agree that a few spoons of rice or whatever is no substitute for breastmilk - even in addition to breastmilk, its hardly going to make a difference. Maybe the thinking is that by starting earlier you will then get to the protien earlier, and that it will help then? I dunno? Maddness.

Message withdrawn

But bloss - the problem with that is that babies NEED the calories. So even though their tummies may feel fuller for longer they aren't getting the calories they need and some babies may actually start to lose weight on solids because of this. Best to keep their tummies filled with milk IMO and keep those little pudgy arms and legs - even if it does mean feeding them a bit more often

Message withdrawn

no, bloss, but most of the threads on here seem to be down to HV recommending weaning because a baby is not gaining weight fast enough. So that does relate to the calorie issue. It does shock me how often I hear that.

I knew a woman who did it, she was telling me how he wasn't gaining enough for her liking so she was going to start him on the solids. I said that surely the milk would get him fatter than some carrots and she said "oh you sound just like that bloody HV" .....

Guess I should have just been surprised that a HV knew what they were talking about. Mind you, mine is very good.

Why would it matter what centile they are on bloss? Do you think babies of a certain height/weight should be put on a diet? Calories are for energy and so are important for a growing baby.
Also, if you are providing foods that are harder/take longer to digest - therefore requiring more energy - you could argue that they would need even MORE calories to compensate for that

It's a load of boloney, isn't it?

At least in Belgium it is still the norm to wean at 4 months, and that's the advice given given by some doctors and health visitors (but not all).

Added to that, there is still a lack of understanding of what is normal for a breast fed baby. It's normal for a bf baby to fed hourly, two hourly, three hourly, and not follow a standard routine. It doesn't necessarily mean they are ready for weaning or need a bottle of formula milk. They make up their own routines, and that often changes by the day, and if you follow the baby and stop looking at your watch, actually life becomes pretty easy - at least that's been my experience.

I think there's a difference between saying that the solids may slow the digestive system and thereby enable better sleeping and saying that it will help put on weight.
The former may very well be true for some babies while the latter is obviouly not true due to the calorie differential. The two arguments are unrelated.
The problem is when a baby is put onto solids to make it sleep before it is able to cope with the drop in calorie intake (obviously ignoring the whole potential digestive development issue as has not been mentioned in OP).

Alot of people seem to have the stereotype that babies feed every 4 hours and I think it can come as a bit of a shock to some mothers.

I personally also found alot of pressure from other generations to wean early(especially people of my mums generation). Plus,if some people are not as well informed they may not know about all the calories in milk, and think that 'food' would keep them fuller longer than milk. There is also an alarming amount of differing opinions, even within the Medical Professions

I totally agree with waiting to wean, however not everyone has all the information available to make that choice.

So do you really think that solids don't make them feel fuller?
I'm not suggesting they have as many calories, just that they might make them feel full.
Nor am I suggesting or encouraging early weaning, but I think if you are going to argue against it, the argument needs to make sense. Calories don't nec make you feel full surely?

ok .... takes deep breath....waiting to be flamed.

I weaned DS1 at 17 weeks on HV advice (he is 2 now.)

why is it 6 months? and if it isn't safe to wean before that why do all the baby food jars say suitable from 4 months?

Lost, the WHO advice is that becuase there is not way to know when the child's digestive system is ready to digest solids (regarless of how big/interested it is) ALL babies should be weaned no earlier than 6 months to avoid possible digestive issues/allergy triggering etc etc.
Someone tell me if I got that right?

Most baby foods also aknowledge on the label that the reccomended age is 6 months.

Why are so many people obsessed by the 26 weeks 'rule' and overly judgemental of others' decisions? Not all babies are the same.

I was determined to make it to 26 weeks of exclusive breastfeeding, but it was not to be. From weeks 15 through to 21 my son gained only 6oz. He is long and lean anyway, but was really getting quite skinny. He also suffered terribly with acid reflux and, whilst medicine helped a little, he still lost a lot of the milk he had eaten and it clearly caused a lot of discomfort. During those last weeks particularly, he was miserable and, in hindsight, milk alone was not satisfying him, it was not possible for me to feed him any more - he simply didn't want any more! He was grabbing food off plates and enviously watching adults and bigger babies eating.

So I decided to wean him to solids at 21 weeks as I believed he was ready. This after much soul searching and feeling guilty. Of course I am avoiding the foods with a higher risk of allergy, and taking it slowly with fruit and veg only, but what a difference!

The result? He loves his food! He was practically biting our hand off for the initial spoonfuls. Big happy smiles during and after meals. Goodbye to acid reflux, more contented breastfeeding. A jolly baby, for the first time in many weeks. The solids are in absolute addition to his milk, he has not dropped any feeds at all. And he has gained just under a pound in two weeks!

Sorry for the long (initial) post but I really feel strongly about this. No-one knows your baby like you do. Mum does know best. Trust your instincts, and try not to feel guilty just because others may judge you. 26 weeks is a recommended cut-off, but there is no magic change that happens with a switch 'on' at 26 weeks. Babies develop differently and, so long as solids are not introduced before 17 weeks, when they absolutely cannot deal with them, I say go with your gut.

:D

I take that point and understand it - my point is why is there so much conflicting advice?

why can large companies who sell baby food get away with going against the WHO ?

Just read my post back and it sounds a bit judgmental and I dint mean it to be - sorry. I was just trying to explain some of the reasons people wean early.

The thing is IF the jars/packets/tins etc suddenly put DO NOT GIVE TO A BABY UNTIL AFTER 6 MONTHS how many millions would Heinz/Organix/Cow & Gate lose in sales???

I can totally understand a sleep deprived mother or father whose baby is BFing constantly and the HV/grandparents/old woman in the street is saying "oh that baby is hungry it needs proper food" would try a bit of baby rice. Sadly the 6 months thing is not getting through, one friend of mine was mushing up rusk in a bottle for her 6 week old, I could have told her about the 6 month thing and why but it wouldn't have made one jot of difference she wanted her baby to sleep through the night.

Sleeping through the night seems to be some holy grail of parenting, so may people ask me is DD3 "good" does she sleep through and then shake their head when I say no, oh but little Philomena has been slepping through the night from 6 weeks (but then later on they tell you they are up 3-4 times replacing the dummy etc)

I thought the current thinking was a babies gut matures somewhere BETWEEN 4-6 months and as there is no way of telling when the holes in the gut wall close up without dissecting it, then to err on the side of caution it is a blanket 6 months for all.

lostinnappies you are SO RIGHT - there is too much conflicting advice on everything! Everyone has an opinion, usually whatever worked for their baby, or what they do, is clearly the best/only way for everyone else ;-) ! Usually where mothers and mothers-in-law are concerned...!

Personally, I think you should read/listen to the advice, weigh up the pros and cons, then decide what's best for you and your baby. Perhaps try different things, until you find what works best. Babies are not the same, so they each have their unique combination of what works.

When it comes to solids, I believe the 17-week de-minimus is absolute and the 26-week (or longer) is the aim, but then you have to find your own point, whenever your own baby is clearly ready.

Guidelines are simply that, guidelines, not strict laws. My baby was not thriving, and not because I was unwilling to feed 24/7, simply because it was not what he wanted or needed. I am SO GLAD I took the step to wean early, despite the judgements of others.

:D

sweetkitty that was very well put, re gut maturing BETWEEN 4-6 months.

No-one like missing sleep surely?

From what I've seen on here (haven't seen an HV since DS was 8 weeks so no personal expereince) HVs seem to come up with advice off the tops of their heads or out out of 1943 Women's Weekly Mags (not all of them I'm sure but too many!)
I guess, WHO advice is just considered best practice, while weaning at 4 months is the absolute minimum, and companies want to sell more food? Dunno.

Mummytotony, I'm sure that reflux is an issue that is a complicating factor which may change the medical indications. However, you make the point that not all babies are the same and we can't tell which ones have tummies that are ready or not. I think the WHO's research simply reached the conclusion that this was one situation in which Mummy simply doesn't know best, as there are not external indicators to show when the baby is ready.

There are people on here who know so much more about it than me though. I have exhausted my knowledge on the subject so will wait for the wise ones to appear.

"sweetkitty that was very well put, re gut maturing BETWEEN 4-6 months."

That's the point though - you can't tell when.

Agreed Bubbaluv. You cannot tell absolutely, but that's where your 'gut instinct' (excuse the pun) comes in ... you will know when your baby is ready. If you don't know, or are not sure, then they're not ready. If in doubt, hold out.

For the record, I will of course still aim for at least 26 weeks ebf with a subsequent child, as is recommended and was my plan with this baby. It just happened that he was ready sooner, he didn't read the plan!

:D

mummytomonty - I think there is a major flaw in the 'mummy will know when her baby is ready' argument. You obviously pointed out that you think 17 weeks is the absolute minimum but if people simply say - 'oh you'll know when the baby is ready' when does that cut off? What if the mummy thinks the baby is ready at 16 weeks? 12 weeks? or in the case that sweetkitty mentioned - 6 weeks! Would you say that that mummy knew what was best for her baby? I think the guidelines are there for a reason and I think it is just going to take time for people to start accepting them - similar to people getting used to the idea of putting a baby on their back to sleep rather than their front to reduce the risk of SIDS. TBH I wonder if more people would actually pay attention to the weaning guidelines if the risks were more visible as in the case of SIDS.