Help - my baby wont stop crying when trying BLW

[confuseddotcom1]

My daughter is now 21 weeks old and has been showing interest in my food so I have decided to let her start trying a few things just for fun using the BLW technique. I make sure she has just been fed and isn't too tired, so she is in the right mood for the new experience!

We have tried 3 times now and each time it ends in disaster! She has excellent grasping and hand-eye or hand-mouth coordination so has no trouble putting the food into her mouth. She spends several minutes happily chomping, sucking and licking the food before starting to cry. The crying then becomes hysterical and she is really inconsolable - there seems nothing I can do to calm her down and it lasts about 30 min.

Can anyone suggest what might be happening here? It feels like she is getting frustrated but I don't understand why she gets sooooo upset? Has anyone had a similar experience??? I'm so keen to use this method and would like it to work. I also don't want her to start associating being upset with eating...

Thanks for you help and advice in advance!

[Qally]

Oops, resurrecting a thread! Sorry.

[Qally]

"I don't agree, I have never seen a baby that found it easy to manage nutritionally on just milk until 6 months - you have to try hard as a parent to achieve this and deliberately ignore signs from your baby that they are ready to wean."

ROTF. My son is just - JUST - accepting food now, at almost 8 months. I was bloody desperate to get him to eat, as I express all his feeds, so I tried offering from 24 weeks - but he was having none of it. He's enormous, chubby and contented. He also managed to avoid Norovirus when every single other person in the house (4 of us) got it, so his immune system seems just fine, too.

How on earth is pureed carrot nutritionally better than breastmilk, anyway?

[tiktok]

CK, I have only just caught up with your wordy reply now.

Please don't tell me how to read or assess research - without outing myself, I can tell I know a great deal more about this than you do. You sound very naive: "Cochrane reviews are helpful for producing NHS frameworks but are a pretty lazy way for an individual to find out about the research as they are providing the conclusion for you."

?????

Do you know how Cochrane reviews come about? I don't think any individual could come close to matching the numbers of people, time and resources involved in producing a Cochrane review. Reading the review tells you how they have come to their conclusions. The Dundee study (the 'Wilson study' as you and no one else in the world refers to it) is one of many considered and weighed and compared by Cochrane.

Trials do not have to control for all the things you list - but some do for some of them. If you think that controlling for a diet of organic solids, exclusive or partial, for example, would make a difference and a study which does not control for this is somehow lessened in value, then I can't help you.

No one told the OP she was damaging her baby. The consensus among the sensible people was her baby was unhappy and in discomfort and as solids were not needed, it might be an idea to wait.

[fragola]

Hi Confused,

We tried BLW with our DS at 26 weeks. He was very keen on the food and very good at picking it up and putting it in his mouth, but when any big bits came off, he would get very upset and cry for some time. The problem was he couldn't work out how to chew or spit out a lump, so he would get very upset.

After about 3 weeks, I tried him with some mashed up food on a spoon and he loved it, it fact he behaved as if he was starving! From then on, I've used a mixture of mashed up food and finger foods (he's now eight months)- he eats everything with gusto and is a much happier little chap.

BLW isn't for every baby, it wasn't for ours, but I don't regret giving it a go.

The things that he has always eaten with no problem are steamed broccoli, fingers of peeled pear and steamed sweet potato sticks.

Good luck x

[Unicornvomit]

it was suggested she should stop weaning as the baby is getting distressed and crying for up to 30 minutes, not because it has caused her harm

we don;'t know the OPs baby , but going on what she has siad, her baby is finding eating solids distressing, and no harm will be done by stopping offering solids, especially as the OP wants to do BLW, and this baby is not happy eating food.

nobody gave categorical orders without evidence. opinions were offered.

not sure why you are so defensive

BLW is not everybody , but the OP wnats to give it a try

[dorisbonkers]

curiosity.

I weaned my baby at nearly 7 months (BLW)

My mother weaned me at 8 months.

I think many parents misread interest in food (as something their parents do alot in their company, so is of course fascinating and part of gearing up with development to eat solids) with hunger.

[AnarchyAunt]

But nobody said 'stop because it will damage your baby'

What I see being said is, its earlier than necessary, she doesn't need the food, so if it makes her cry, stop and try again in a few weeks.

Are we reading the same thread?

[MrsMattie]

I genuinely don't understand why people get so, so obsessed with feeding their babies solids. Surely if your baby turns it's head away, clamps it's mouth shut, cries, shows signs of discomfort etc it means he/she DOES NOT WANT ANY FOOD, THANK YOU.

I weaned my DS at 20 wks and my DD at 26 wks (and still weaning, very, very slowly). But age of weaning - and BLW or not - is not really the point...is it?

The point is that whatever you choose to feed your baby and when (within reason) you start weaning, surely, surely it should be at your babies own pace?

[curiositykilled]

You don't have to think anything about me. I'm not trying to discredit anything you are saying apart from that what you think is a fact. "we don't want guesses" - why? Guesses are fine if stated as such - what is not helpful is opinion stated as fact.

Yes, wilson is about the dundee cohort. I feel there are huge holes in that not least that it takes no account of childcare arrangements/socialising of baby and is based on a questionnaire filled in by parents. Cochrane reviews are helpful for producing NHS frameworks but are a pretty lazy way for an individual to find out about the research as they are providing the conclusion for you.

I have NEVER said it would harm to wean at 6 months just that I thought it would be later than most babies would choose to start and that I felt it cannot be argued it is nutritionally superior as the baby has to rely on it's (particularly iron) stores to see it through. The OP has already started to wean so from your perspective the 'damage' has already been done.

The Cochrane review you are offering says it is better to wait, says that waiting has been found to reduce respiratory and gastro-intestinal problems. Do you know WHY this is? Have you read the research this review is based on (clearly you have at least heard of the Wilson one)? Which studies/trials take into account factors such as type of solids given, food hygiene practises, general exposure to germs, consistency of solids given, frequency of solids given, what those solids were, portion sizes, whether the children have been to nursery, have siblings of various ages/numbers, family history of gastro-intestinal and respiratory diseases, sterilising practises, quality of food given, whether organic or non-organic produce given exclusively, occasional supplementing with formula, vaccinations, smoking - how often mother smoked in pregnancy, who smokes in the house, how many cigarettes they smoke, how often they are around people smoking, how often ppl wait after smoking before picking up the baby, independent confirmation of a parent's perception that their child has respiratory/gastro-intestinal illness, prevalence of gastro-intestinal/respiratory illness before weaning began, actual age in weeks/days weaning began, what cross-sections of population geographically and socially were used, living conditions - damp/mould, age of exposure and frequency of exposure to each factor, parent's attitude to illness/ability to recognise illness e.t.c. There are soooo many factors involved in gastro-intestinal/respiratory illness and in the observing of it's prevalence that I would want to know which were taken into account in these studies and how the data was collected and categorised.

The reality of the iron situation is that as we live in a developed country and are all well-nourished during pregnancy there is very little chance any baby will develop anaemia during the first year of life whatever it eats/drinks as it's own stores should see it through but this does depend on things such as the mother's medical history e.t.c. Also, let me remind you that most of the studies about allergies - other effects on the gut including the absorption of iron are about 'early weaning' pre 4 months.

I never objected to following the advice as a guideline, in fact I have said several times that as it won't do any harm to follow the advice it would be better to revert to it if you don't feel confident working outside it - it is difficult to do as there are lots of factors to consider and decisions to make.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the advice just people's interpretation of the advice being that if you give your baby solids pre 6 months your baby will be damaged and that people think it is OK to tell the mother, who has already started weaning, that she should stop as it is too early - without actually knowing anything about her or her baby. The guidelines work on a better safe than sorry basis that in itself does not imply an actual superiority. Some of the research implies superiority but equally, some does not.

[tiktok]

Is the 'Wilson' study you are guessing about the Dundee cohort, curiosity?

The guidance in the UK is based on the Cochrane study, which is a meta-analysis. Cochrane may well reference Wilson, but that's all. Please don't 'guess' that the guidance is based on Wilson - we don't want guesses

You're right there is not much research comparing the effects of weaning at 5-6 mths with weaning at 6 mths - that's an artefact of the research, really. Can't do nuffin about it. But given there are no studies which show harm in weaning at 6 mths, and that babies' behaviour and physical development show that round about 6 mths is when they show an interest and ability in self-feeding, there is not much wrong that I can see in a public health policy that recommends 6 mths as guidance, while leaving room for individual variations.

The OP has been given useful information on this thread, and she describes herself that attempts to wean her 21 week old have been 'a disaster' - what on earth is wrong with reminding her of the guidance and saying it is fine to wait?

The whole of your post is confused and verbose, and tries to make out you have read huge amounts of research - I don't believe you!

[curiositykilled]

"mostly too late" clarified later as "later than most babies would choose" also if you actually read my posts they are effectively saying the same as Libra. The NHS guidelines are down to conflicting research and other worries (guessing mostly the wilson study about immune benefits of exclusive breastfeeding and others) and are a 'better safe than sorry' policy.

'Early weaning' is medically defined as weaning before 3/4 months not before 6 months and few studies have included the impact of weaning between 4 and 6 months (wilson has but I believe it is not comprehensive). My argument/opinion, was that whilst waiting and following advice to wean at 6 months will be fine it is not necessarily true to say it will be nutritionally superior on it's own. This was because people were saying it was categorically superior.

Besides there's milk and milk isn't there? Breast milk and formula. How could saying "milk" is nutritonally superior to 6 months even be true when breastmilk and formula are so different? That's not even what the advice says anyway. The advice says to start weaning around 6 months as weaning earlier may increase the babies susceptibility to infections or allergies - may = better safe than sorry not 'milk is nutritionally superior'. In my mind formula feeding from birth is very similar to weaning with solid food (in some ways worse because cows milk is an allergen), formula from before 3/4 months is widely accepted to have very similar effects as solids before 3/4 months (early weaning) in research terms but that doesn't stop loads of people formula feeding does it? Why? Because it is their choice, a choice to which they are entitled. Would any of you be up in arms about a formula feeding post? Probably not. You'd probably be trying to be supportive - so why can't I be supportive in this situation? I was, after all, only really agreeing with what the parent thought was going on.

It's all immaterial anyway, the original poster had already started to wean before 6 months so I'm not sure why I'm not allowed to disagree with everyone else saying it is categorically too early without having met the child. I only said it's worth trying a number of things to see how the baby responds and made a suggestion as to what I'd do.

I got involved in this argument only because I feel it's very irresponsible to leave posts like the ones above which are giving categorical orders without offering any evidencial justification and without meeting the baby or the mother. I have only claimed to have an opinion, my own opinion, based on my interpretation of the huge amount of research that is available. Kellymom can't be used as evidence as it is just another person's opinion based on their interpretation of the research and their own knowledge. It is no more valid in terms of evidence than any of my own posts apart from that it has referenced some of the research on which it has formed the opinions.

What is everyone actually afraid of in what I am saying? If you read proper impartial evidence from both sides you can form your own informed opinions, whatever they may be. Do none of you ever question anything these institutions are telling you? Do you all just follow advice blindly without finding out what the advice is based on (kellymom does not count as you'd have to critically appraise the advice kellymom is based on for your self or you are still just regurgitating someone else's opinion)? This is not a criticism, it's just that this worries me. These are your lives and your children, don't you want to know why you're being told these things? Don't forget the NHS is not infallible, they thought thalidomide was safe at one point. It's ridiculous to even expect that they would be infallible.

Whatever happens clearly all that will happen to the baby is that she might be upset - upset at being deprived of food if I were right, upset at being given food if I'm not or upset for a completely different reason that only her mum will be able to see anyway.

[scaredoflove]

WHO recommends 180 days as optimum and all babies should start by then and never before 17 weeks. They never mention virgin guts, that is soley from kellymom.

[gussymooloo]

LOL if 6 months is to late my dd is screwded she weaned at 13months

[AitchTwoOh]

why did you post, ck, when you know everything about everything etc?

[tiktok]

Just been reading curiosity's hyperactivity on these weaning boards -

[tiktok]

curiosity - what will happen to babies who are not weaned until 6 mths - the time you say it is 'too late'?

I'm sure you will answer confidently and authoritatively, whatever.

[pigleychez]

I dont agree that 6mths is too late at all.

I started BLW with DD at 26 weeks and she didnt start actually eating anything untill about7/8 mths. Only at 9mths did she start eating any decent amount. Shes now 10mths and tucks in! We have both loved BLW

Confused- I too would say leave off for a while and try again. Try and make mealtimes relaxed as she will sense if you are uptight.

Curisity- Did you wean your child/ren early (before 26 weeks) by any chance?

[wombleprincess]

whilst agreeing you are entitled to you own opinion, on this thread and several others the OP is not asking your opinion about BLW but for advice about it, of which you have none to give.

given you have no personal experience of it, i am wondering why you feel so strongly against it, you have clearly have a real fixation.

[Unicornvomit]

yes, curiosity, of course you are entitled to your own opinion

saying babies can cope with solids from birth and 6 months is probably to late to wean are two statements i cannot agree wtih and goes against everything i have read and reserached.

i think libras last point has summed it all up very well

[LibrasBiscuitsOfFortune]

Actually curiositykilled ia right in one respect, most babies bodies WILL be ready to wean between 4 and 6 months, the problem is that you, as a parent, can't see inside their little bodies to tell when they are ready. Hence why it is recommended to wait until at least 6 months as then they will be. Waiting 6 months won't kill any baby, even those on high percentiles for weight and height can manage very nicely on milk.

[Flibbertyjibbet]

you are yet to justify your argument with anything other than you own opinion and NHS guidelines.

hmm yes because the nhs just made up the guidelines with no research or anything didn't it.

[TrinityRhino]

curiositykilled - your first post is full of enough bollocks for me not to read the rest
IMVHO

[curiositykilled]

The wilson study which is provided as evidence for exclusive breastfeeding being best up to 6 months did not take into account variables such as nursery attendance, exposure to smoking (only asked how many ppl in house smoked not whether smoked around babies or where/how often smoked) was based on questionaires filled in by parents about how often they thought their children had symptoms of various things (not very reliable as a subjective opinion fitted into a yes/no questionnaire) and never asked how weaned babies were weaned or what they were fed and when. To improve this study you could have asked the parents whose babies were weaned pre 6 months and had the same statistical outcomes as exclusively breastfed babies how their babies were weaned and what they were fed, for how long, for example. Anyway, this study I would say was evidencially dubious. The main reason is the study group was taken from a geographically small area and the results were based on a very small group of children which were also split into even smaller groups based on classifications such as 'exclusively breastfed' which were decided by the ppl carrying out the study. There are many major problems with the validity of this study as far as I can see.

That is just one study however, the main issue is with the whole site. The whole site is only presenting evidence to support her own opinions and does not offer any evidence for conflicting opinions and why it hasn't convinced her. It is far from impartial or comprehensive. Maybe I should start another thread for this though as it's taking over this one.

[curiositykilled]

kellymom is an interpretation of evidence by someone else and surely could not be considered evidence in it's own right but I shall spend some time reading it if this is what your opinion is based on.

I have based my own opinion on my own experience, knowledge, research published in medical journals, questions I have asked my various family members in the medical profession whilst my children were growing up and my own intrepretations of the validity of each study but I can't stress enough that these are just my own opinions to which I am entitled.