Is there any out there who waited LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS to start weaning/solids?

[akimbu]

This question is only relevant for EBF mums.

I've recently read a book saying that babies can be EBF for a whole year, that you should only introduce fruits and veg for the first year of weaning and no grains til the third year. Well that seems to go against a) the ubiquitous convention of baby rice which is clearly a grain, and b) many people who wean as early as 4 months.

I find it a complete wind up that seemingly intelligent women start early weaning because their babies "are hungry", or they can't make enough milk to satisfy them, or they think it will help babies crap sleeping. Who started this nonsense? Women all over the world for millenia exclusively feed their babies whilst surviving of seriously depleted diets themselves and yet so many women are under the misguided idea that they can't produce enough milk. It's so undermining.

Back to the point...which is that I would really like to wait til at least 9 months to wean if my dd is up for that too - it seems such a mine field to start on solids, but have heard horror stories surrounding her potential to become a fussy eater if I don't introduce different tastes and textures early enough. Or that I just wont be able to sustain feeding every couple of hours through the night for another 3 months. The last 6 have nearly finished me off in terms of exhaustion.

So so many reasons to stay on the boob exclusively tho.

I don't know anyone who hasn't weaned at 5/6 months. Can't find any threads on MN about it. No info at La Leche. Any books any one knows about?

Come on! ARE THERE ANY RADICALS OUT THERE?

If you do BLW the chance of DC actually swallowing anything for the first couple of weeks are very slim, if the baby isn't ready for solids then it won't eat it, simple as that and if it is ready then s/he should be the one to decide. What are your reasons for waiting until later than 6 months?

I think that baby rice is just a thickener isn't it, there's no grain in it? I've never used it so I'm not certain, but I'm sure someone told me it just makes the milk a bit thicker.

Baby rice is made of rice! of course it's a grain! but contains no gluten, so it's easy to digest.

back to the point, there is a thread where everybody "confesses" the weaning age and there are a few people who started weaning past 6 months, so it's not entirely impossible. Good luck!

I don't think there's any doubt that milk should be the main food for the first year and I know of plenty of children who had very little solids before one. I've come across some on-line who had none.

I can't see what problem it would give your DD if she had only milk until nine months but I've not seen any substantial evidence that exclusively breastfeeding beyond six months has added health benefits (over including some solids after six months). Does that make sense?

I'm surprised there aren't any threads about babies who only have milk up until 9/12 months here. There must be plenty of posters on here whose babies haven't taken to solids before that. It's not that uncommon. There are also plenty of people on here who gave solids later than six months. I'm not sure how many of them would call themselves radical though - people are usually responding to their child's needs.

I'd want to see some pretty good evidence about why grains should be avoided before three myself. Sounds like a personal view rather than a fact!

Why be lead by the calendar? Why not be guided by your baby? Evidence is pretty strong that most babies want to expand their repertoire at some time about 6 mths, and there is some biological plausability as to why this should be the case.

Seems pointless to fix on 9 mths, as pointless as fixing on 4 mths....you say if your baby is 'up for that, too' which is reassuring as it implies you're watching your baby rather than the date

'No grains till the third year' sounds as daft as the other myths you outline.

the most natural thing in the world is to provide food in front of your baby so that when they are ready, they will bite, chew and swallow - i.e. baby-led weaning. DS didn't really get the hang of it all until about 9 months but before then he'd learnt all about different tastes and textures, in connection with what different foods look like, it was all about 'learning to eat' - so he didn't really eat (i.e. because he was hungry) until 9 months IMHO.

Hi there, I'm one of your radicals. On my GP's crap advice I tried DS on baby rice at 5 months and it made him violently ill every time we tried it. It was impossible to miss the connection. Boob = baby fine. Rice = baby very ill. And it seemed to turn him off trying any other food. So he had nothing but boob (with very very small exceptions) until 9 or 10 months. He's now trying lots of different foods, some he likes, some he turns his nose up at. I wouldn't say he's fussy.

I also don't plan to wean him at any specific time, if he wants to nurse until he's three, that's fine with me.

2 years and waiting
OK I'm being flippant but that's how it feels sometimes, DS eats like a sparrow who like weetabix

Thanks everyone for your useful comments.

ThingOne, I thought there were added health benefits to be EBF for longer that's why I'm keen to wait - things to do with immune system development, iron stores etc. It's only in Western countries babies are weened at 6mo.

My DD is looking at us intently when we eat and trying to grab everything and sometimes she sits in a high chair at the table just so we can all be together - but I have this feeling that because she is exploring the world through her mouth, if I was to put food in front of her she would pick it up and put it in her mouth - but that doesn't mean she's hungry, it could be a new toy for all she knows.

Jacksmama, what were the very very small exceptions?