is dd ready for weaning?

[gorge2003]

my 18 week old dd seems ready for weaning, she is drinking 9oz of aptamil (number 1) every 3-4 hours, she is chewing everything she canmanage to get to her mouth, chewing her tongue, she has started waking in the night to feed when she has previoously slept through til now, and whenever we eat she starts screaming...what do i do put her on hungry baby aptamil or introduce some baby rice?

ferncottage. this is the basis i am going on but i have been rather slated for it!

the thing is my son is so much happier on solids but hey everyone is to there own opinion but some people cant accept other peoples views!

Roxy, didn't you read any books or magazines or mumsnet or leaflets or posters on the walls of the baby clinic or even the side of the packet of rusks? And I am really sorry, but I just don't believe that 3 months ago 4 separate health visitors told anyone that it was OK to give a 3 month old baby rusks!

I am glad someone else agree's with me. thank god some people can see my point.

phew!

seeker for god's sake you so think you are right i am not saying you are completly wrong but to call me liar that is something else!

keep your opinions to yourself if you have nothing nice to say!

you really need to calm the hell down!

you are really taking this to far now. saying you dont believe me!

you dont even no me!

my baby was in SCBU and i am very interested in book, magazines and so on thankyou very much!

roxy

"because i got advised to wean early but i didnt get advised to give my baby rusks.

i got told to wean early. not as early as 3 months"

OR

"when i gave my baby rusks at 3 months, i had spoke to 4 health visitors about him and they did say that it is ok to start him on rusks and go from there!"

roxy, with the health of tiny babies at stake it is very important that decisions are made on best practice, research, guidelines and informed medical advice based on individual babies. As you are aware now, it is not your place to advise that others follow your choices, especially when it is not entirely clear what your choices were or how they were made. You seem unsure whether you were told to wean or decided to wean or whether rusks were recommended to you or not.

ferncottage, it is not a few years since guidelines changed to 6 months, it's 7 years and it's a very, very, very long time since the guidelines were 3 months. They were 4-6months for a very long time indeed.

Yes all babies are different and the guidelines allow for this. It's not 6 months exactly, it's around 26weeks when babies are showing the signs. Some will show them earlier, some later but generally around that time. If you follow those signs then you're allowing for individual difference.

And since milk has far more calories than any food you could offer a baby, it's highly unlikely that an exclusively bfed or ffed baby would be 'starving'. They certainly won't be adversely affected by waiting and it might just make the difference in the long run.

ok...i was advised to wean early but i chose to wean earlier at 3 months.

i was told rusks were ok for babies by 4 HEALTH VISITORS!

JUST LOOKED RUSKS UP AND THEY ARE SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES! HMMMM SORRY!

A few years ago we were told that it was OK for babies to sleep on their tummies and that a carry cot on the back seat of a car was the safest way for a new-born to travel. We were also told to put butter on a burn.

We know better now because we have found out more about these subjects.

Advice changes as knowledge increases. We would righly be outraged if someone said "Well, I never had a car seat when i was a baby and I'm OK, so I'm not going to put my baby in a car seat" The same applies to weaning.

The chances are that if you don't put your baby in a car seat they'll be fine. But a tiny % of babies will be in an accident and be hurt. The vast majority of babies can be weaned at 3/4 months with no ill effects. But a % will be damaged by it. And you have no way of knowing whether your baby is one of those or not. Why take the risk?

I am getting rather annoyed now!

good point seeker. i understand that completely!

I suggest you direct your annoyance at the health visitors who advised you. And didn't correct you when you told them you were giving your 3 month old rusks. Your anger at us is misplaced.

And if anybody stumbles across this, rusks are not okay for 3 month olds, not even the manufacturers would dare claim it.

roxy, if you're entirely happy with your choices, then don't feel the need to justify them on here. It is a good thing that many MNers are (not at all rudely) explaining the current guidelines time and time again in the interests of others.

i understand that but RUSKS ARE SUITABLE FOR ALL AGES!

i didnt know i was wrong in what i was doing so i felt confident in the advise i was giving.

can you not understand that?????

Where does it say that rusks are suitable for all ages?

on the packet! i have some here!

the big round ones are suitable for all ages. i have just looked it up!

On the Heniz baby website there's a picture of a box of rusks which says "All ages". I'm presuming in Heniz-speak this means from weaning age i.e. 4-6 months (can't quite see the small print under that). They are described as being ideal first foods.

So, they ARE marketed to babies under 6 months...well their parents anyway.

Which, IMHO, is completely wrong.

A link to the Heinz site here

I can't zoom in to see what it says under "All ages" though but I've just looked up the back of packet blurb on the Tesco site and they are clearly described as first foods.

ferncottage,my children are 10 and 4, so my weaning years are behind me, but due to work i do and volunteering i do, i need to know this stuff and it is important, even when my own DCs are older, to try to disseminate the correct advice/ access to guidelines to newer parents

who are of course, quite entiteld to give their children rusks/rice whatever at 3 months or wheneer they want, but not to tell others willy nilly to do the same when it is not correct

if people hve all the information and access to the info and then choose to wean far earlier than receommended, fair play.

does not mean no-one should disagree

Under the 'all ages' bit it says 'from 4-6 months'. Not 3 months at all.

I have some in the cupboard. They belong to dh.

The law needs to change to reflect the guidelines. The 4-6 months thing is confusing for everybody.

the ones that i have in my cupboard say all ages. from 3 months. that is strange!

i dont just give my son food that isnt aged for him.
like if it says 7 months i wouldnt give my son them at 6 months!

and i was told rusks were ok for 3 months as i keep saying!

when i told my health visitor that i was givng my baby rusks she said that is fine.

rusks are so sugary, it's like giving a biscuit, which we ration to ourselves and our older chidlren, so giving them to a baby is not that great.. i am (not that) surprised that your health visitors gave you such misleading information, it must have been v v confusing.

lulu! it is making me sound really bad but this is the information i have been given!

you know! it is a bit confusing! what do you do?

people now think bad of me!

the thing is as i have said previously i thought i was giving good information as this is what i have been told by health visitors.

one of the first things i said to you was that i could believe you got four hvs giving you duff advice, or at least not being completely clear in their advice. they're not the be-all and end-all.

re the rudeness and the calming down etc, i don't know if you're aware but you pepper your posts with ! and say that people are being 'very nasty' when they were being nothing of the sort. that's not really fair.

the main thing is, though, that it's not on to extrapolate from your experience with a reflux-y baby under the care of a paediatrician, just as if your baby had a broken leg and they'd put a stookie on, you wouldn't advise that all babies get bandaged up. it's not fair to do that to other mums and you should be pulled up on it. that's not a slating, though, far from it, it's just that these posts come up on google and it would be irresponsible to let people post wild misinformation without seeking to correct it.

aitch i understand that really i do!

i just look like the bad guy giving bad information but it isnt like that.

i have been told by health visitors this information and this is what i have been doing with my son.

i thought i was giving good information as i have been told by SO CALLED PROFESSIONALS.

do u understand that?

of course i understand that, that's why i said that i could believe you'd had bad advice from four hvs. i think some of them just don't give a shit about best practice, tbh. it's them you should be furious as, them and bloody heinz who put profit before the health of small children. it's a disgrace, tbh. you've been failed and you've been conned. (as have we all, at some point or another, hence the very definite desire to stop this shabby info on MN).

just stick around here, this is where you get the best info, i promise. all human life is here, lots of science geeks who'll read the research for us and break it down.

What do you mean by correct? weaning advice is not comparable with advice on baby seats where the evidence is so much easier to compile. And it wasn't 7years ago - my daughter is 5. And it is likely that more research will show that younger is better again in the future. I know the WHO wants us all to follow 3rd world countries but that is a ludicrous suggestion - such countries wean late for all kinds of health reasons which just don't exist here.

and calm down aitch, we're talking about rusks here not world peace - and at 3 months, not birth!