Is it true that new guide lines state we should now wean between 17-20 weeks - no later?

[whensmydayoff]

I was at a friends house today and this is what she told me her friend's HV told her!

Apparently they (HV's) were all sent on a course and this is the new guide lines based on new evidence. This new evidence states that waiting any longer infact increases the chance of allergies as opposed to the opposite to be true.

17-20 weeks seems very specific and hard to believe. Is this nonsense or has anyone else heard this?

Nonsense afaik.
That's the old advice.

NHS webpage. Says 6mo.

It is nonsense, and the DoH have confirmed that it is not the current advice, nor have they any plans to change from the current advice

European review - seems inconclusive, but interesting

my hv's said 17 - 20 weeks last week too, after I queried the new guidelines - well new to me with dd - ds is not nearly 7 and he was started at 7 months, I was quite surprised as they gave me all the government buff about waiting till 6 months or I will have a obese allergic baby etc. Am now a bit confused all around about the official line on this.

guess I'll just go back to the old instincts again ds has no allergies and is skinny as a rake, but will monitor these threads see if things are changing AGAIN.

bad typo ds is not nearly 7 yrs and was done at 4.5 months as was instructed at time by h.v - sorry rubbish at b.f and typing

ds is not nearly 7
not nearly 7 yrs and was
.....

all I want to do is type now
will stop this now and feed baby

sorry

I am lurking with interest. I went to baby clinic yesterday with my 18 week old and was told I should think about starting about 5 months but definitely by 6 months. She also said something about how the guidance had recently changed? Anyone?! My plan was to do BLW from 6 months...now I am confused about the new guidance and actually it takes quite a lot to confuse me!! If it was just the HV saying it I'd just dismiss it to be honest, but....

Name and shame your area StrikeUpTheBand - the DoH said that they would be very interested to hear which HVs were saying these things as it is not correct

The USA has just changed it's guidelines recently back to 4-6 months and so do other european countries (see the european review link above)
and this paper basically backs up ESPGHAN medical position paper backs up the advice for 4-6 months rather than waiting for 6 months.

sorry I need to write that in english

The USA has just changed it's guidelines recently back to 4-6 months and other european countries have similar guidelings
(see the european review link above)

This paper ESPGHAN medical position backs up the advice for 4-6 months rather than waiting for 6 months.

"In all infants, in consideration
of their nutritional needs, developmental abilities, and reported associations between the timing of introduction of complementary feeding and later health, which are
discussed later, the introduction of complementary foods should not be before 17 weeks but should not be delayed
beyond 26 weeks."

It makes a point of introducing foods which are age appropriate and safe for the baby, according to developmental ability. It is clearly different for each child, and it also says that because the necessary hormone responses are actually governed by the introduction of solid food, it is not the baby's gut that 'matures' at six months, but the introduction of food that makes the gut and bodily systems respond in kind.

It also talks about the importance of protein, fat, carbs and vitamins and minerals such as iron - its not as easy a introducing a bit of carrot or sweet potato at 6 months - it sounds like they need more than that. 90% of a breastfed baby's iron needs to come from food, and eating beef aged 5-7 months is associated with a better haemoglobin level.

It also says to introduce gluten (alongside bfing if you can to help prevent allergic reaction) pretty early - not before 4 months but not after 7 months - this has been associated with preventing coeliac disease.

Very interesting. Clearly not one size fits all, but I personally would wait until LO is able to sit up (with minimal support) and able to ingest something himself - picking it up, putting it in his mouth and eating it, and after that I would get going pretty quickly on most foods. If this happens at 5 months, by the sounds of it, it is fine.

forgot to say bruffin - cheers for that link .

"It makes a point of introducing foods which are age appropriate and safe for the baby, according to developmental ability. It is clearly different for each child, and it also says that because the necessary hormone responses are actually governed by the introduction of solid food, it is not the baby's gut that 'matures' at six months, but the introduction of food that makes the gut and bodily systems respond in kind."

That makes so much more sense than what has been peddled round here for years.
That the gut matures between 4 and 6 months and because we can't see inside a baby's stomach then it's better to wait.
Why would nature make something like that "invisible" if it was so important.

Surely nature sending signs like baby taking interest and getting excited when it sees food makes far more sense.

Sounds like to me the HVs are now more up to date than the NHS

I weaned ds1 and 2 according to instinct (their size, their ability, their interest etc) and ds3 as per the new 6mo rule. It was awful. Utterly miserable for both of us holding out that long when he was clearly ready at 5mo. Back to instinct with baby 4 and she will be weaned, I guess, at some point between 18 and 26 weeks.

There is also thisEAT study

Heresy , heresy I tell you

I hope the anti weaning before six months brigade will be taking this on.

[GRIN]

OOPS

I waited until 2 days shy of six months because that is when he was sitting up, he had definitely lost the tongue thrust, which is a safety mechanism surely, and he was actually putting the food in his mouth. A few days/week before that he had cucumber for his gums. My friends baby was securely sitting at 5 and a bit months and the tongue thrust had also gone, so she started a bit earlier.

I still reckon stuffing them full of baby rice before they know their arse from their elbow is a bit though and not particularly wise.

this review clearly states that 'Infants who are exclusively breastfed for six months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal infection than those who are mixed breastfed as of three or four months, and no deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for six months or longer.'

It does say that management should be on an individual basis so that 'insufficient growth' should not be ignored, but that basically it is better to wait for six months.

"the introduction of complementary foods should not be before 17 weeks but should not be delayed beyond 26 weeks"

glad I hadn't read that when weaning ds. introduced food at 6 months, but think it was 9 months before he actually swallowed something (a baked bean). I don't think I could have forced him to eat earlier (we tried daily!), and that sentence would have really worried me.

out of interest, what is the evidence not to delay beyond 26 weeks (compared to exbf)? I couldn't see that anywhere in the paper.

I've been told to wait until 6 months as DH and I are Atopic. DD is now 17 weeks and is only 2nd percentile though so I can see the HVs suggesting food earlier - just as they did with DS. He was weaned at 5 months and has no allergies so far.

She definitely not ready yet so I guess I'll wait and see what they say

I know this is an old thread but I just came across this

Apparently they are now saying that more research needs to be done to see whether the WHO guidelines apply to Western countries or only developing countries where there is a poor water supply and under nutrition is common.