A thought on introducing solids...

[laodicean]

Before 6 months, breastmilk/formula is nutritionally superior, better for their digestive system, and SO much easier. So I honestly don't understand why this is such a debated topic. It just doesn't make any sense.

And after 6mths, the UK guidelines recommend that EBF infants are started on vitamin supplementation because breast milk is inadequate. Does it suddenly become inadequate at 6mths? Or has it potentially been becoming increasingly inadequate over the previous few months and month 6 is the point where risks outweigh benefits and supplementation becomes advised?

Note that formula fed babies don't need supplementation. If we follow your logic, the best nutrition for babies is formula for the first 6 months of life and beyond. I'm not saying formula is bad (far from it, those that need to use it do so and credit to them), but there are many who question why formula feed when breast is better.

The point is, it doesn't make sense to you, but it does to another mother for her child. So if she's aware of all the guidelines and issues involved, and she chooses to start weaning before 6mths because that's what she feels is right for her child, who are you to write off her parenting choices?

 

[sbl]

I have not been irresponsible in introducing my little man to baby rice - and after a debate on this point with a fully qualified dietition - it was conceded that I had a point and and that it did indeed 'sound' like he was ready to move on, but of course, it wasn't worth her job to say that he was.

Can I ask what exactly your dietician said? My lo had to see a dietician and I cannot imagine them "backing down" with anyone on this.

Regardless of your sons physical development the fact still remains that weaning early isn't a good idea. Not only for the allergy reason but for the fact that it can cause digestive issues later in life.

The guidelines aren't there to tell you what to do, after all no one from the NHS or any other government body are gonna be following you home watching your every move. They are there to inform you of major research they have done over years if not decades.
You the parent can make the decision then to follow them or ignore them.
You have obviously chosen to ignore them so what does it matter what your HV says?
Imo I would go with years of research and information.

 

[sbl]

Before 6 months, breastmilk/formula is nutritionally superior, better for their digestive system, and SO much easier. So I honestly don't understand why this is such a debated topic. It just doesn't make any sense.

Note that formula fed babies don't need supplementation. If we follow your logic, the best nutrition for babies is formula for the first 6 months of life and beyond. I'm not saying formula is bad (far from it, those that need to use it do so and credit to them), but there are many who question why formula feed when breast is better.

She did state that breastmilk was best I'm sure she added formula to this statement to not undermine women who do use formula!!

 

[Athena]

A 4 month old is pretty much guaranteed to have an open gut, and since you can't really be sure of when it closes, we're advised to play it safe and wait til 6 months.

"Pretty much guaranteed"? Well, that's okay then, as long as it's pretty much guaranteed we should all just do what we're told without ever questioning anything.

Playing it safe just in case is fine, but just because someone choses not to in this instance doesn't automatically follow that they're child-abusers who are ruining the life and health of their child.

And as I've previously said, current research is currently questioning why rates of allergies are increasing despite later weaning. 6mths is a guideline, not set in stone. I will not be surprised if people are going to be witch hunted on parenting forums in 10yrs time because they haven't started weaning yet, such is tendency for guidelines to change direction every few decades.

If they're full they'll stop.

Really? You clearly don't have my baby boy then, who, given that he was EBF, would quite happily nurse till he vomited it all up each and every time. I had to limit him to one boob per feed for quite a long time because otherwise it'd all come straight back all over the both of us, leaving him even hungrier and me completely out of milk and unable to feed him.

For goodness sake, no one said anything as dramatic as child abuse or ruining lives!!! Jeez

OP baby rice, seriously? It's completely pointless. As a pp said if you really have to wean early then purée up some veg or something.

As for the guideline debate, well there has to be some sort of guidance to follow or we'd all be on here complaining we'd been left to it without a clue! Some mums don't have the intuition, I certainly didn't with my first and was grateful for well-researched advice to follow.

 

[wemustntpanic]

A 4 month old is pretty much guaranteed to have an open gut, and since you can't really be sure of when it closes, we're advised to play it safe and wait til 6 months.

"Pretty much guaranteed"? Well, that's okay then, as long as it's pretty much guaranteed we should all just do what we're told without ever questioning anything.

Playing it safe just in case is fine, but just because someone choses not to in this instance doesn't automatically follow that they're child-abusers who are ruining the life and health of their child.

And as I've previously said, current research is currently questioning why rates of allergies are increasing despite later weaning. 6mths is a guideline, not set in stone. I will not be surprised if people are going to be witch hunted on parenting forums in 10yrs time because they haven't started weaning yet, such is tendency for guidelines to change direction every few decades.

If they're full they'll stop.

Really? You clearly don't have my baby boy then, who, given that he was EBF, would quite happily nurse till he vomited it all up each and every time. I had to limit him to one boob per feed for quite a long time because otherwise it'd all come straight back all over the both of us, leaving him even hungrier and me completely out of milk and unable to feed him.

For goodness sake, no one said anything as dramatic as child abuse or ruining lives!!! Jeez

OP baby rice, seriously? It's completely pointless. As a pp said if you really have to wean early then purée up some veg or something.

As for the guideline debate, well there has to be some sort of guidance to follow or we'd all be on here complaining we'd been left to it without a clue! Some mums don't have the intuition, I certainly didn't with my first and was grateful for well-researched advice to follow.

I'm thinking she was overdramatising to emphasize the point that early weaners are demonised.

Your 'seriously op? Baby rice' comment is what I'm talking about here. Yes, baby rice. Not poison.

 

[laodicean]

My comment was more specifically aimed at the very incorrect assumption that allergies are a rarity.

I agree, and more than increased reporting rates that is causing the rises seen in populations across the globe. It's clearly multi-factorial and complex, and the last thing a mother needs if her child develops food allergies is the guilt about a giving him a bit of baby rice before they were 6mths old.

I suspect that it's more likely due to changing lifestyles: we're exposed to more foods from a young age thanks to air-freighting; we're living in highly sanitized environments that may lead to over-active immune responses to normal day-to-day proteins; hell, it could be the abundance of female hormones in the water supply thanks to the development of the oral contraceptive pill. Who knows? All I know is that it's not as simple as when the baby was weaned, and that the tide of thought is now turning to think that delayed weaning may be compounding the problem.

Black and white. It only exists in Xerox land.

 

[SaraEmily]

A 4 month old is pretty much guaranteed to have an open gut, and since you can't really be sure of when it closes, we're advised to play it safe and wait til 6 months.

"Pretty much guaranteed"? Well, that's okay then, as long as it's pretty much guaranteed we should all just do what we're told without ever questioning anything.

Playing it safe just in case is fine, but just because someone choses not to in this instance doesn't automatically follow that they're child-abusers who are ruining the life and health of their child.

And as I've previously said, current research is currently questioning why rates of allergies are increasing despite later weaning. 6mths is a guideline, not set in stone. I will not be surprised if people are going to be witch hunted on parenting forums in 10yrs time because they haven't started weaning yet, such is tendency for guidelines to change direction every few decades.

If they're full they'll stop.

Really? You clearly don't have my baby boy then, who, given that he was EBF, would quite happily nurse till he vomited it all up each and every time. I had to limit him to one boob per feed for quite a long time because otherwise it'd all come straight back all over the both of us, leaving him even hungrier and me completely out of milk and unable to feed him.

First, I never called you a child abuser or said you're ruining your child's health.

And yes, if it's "pretty much guaranteed" that my 4 month old has an open gut and food could harm them, I do think it's logical to wait until it's "pretty much guaranteed" to be safe. Pretty simple. That doesn't mean I don't question anything. But why would I question the current safety guidelines for no reason? Current research says it's better, who am I to claim I know better?

And it's pretty ridiculous to justify your choices by saying "guidelines change all the time, I'm sure in 10 years it'll be different" because we can't know what will happen in 10 years, all we can do is do the best we can, using what we know to be best RIGHT NOW.

 

[lhancock90]

You know what annoys me most. As someone who bothered to research, to read and decide to go with the guidelines. Being told I "don't question" anything. Yes I do. But when I research and agree. I will follow them.

 

[laodicean]

For goodness sake, no one said anything as dramatic as child abuse or ruining lives!!! Jeez

OP baby rice, seriously? It's completely pointless. As a pp said if you really have to wean early then purée up some veg or something.

As for the guideline debate, well there has to be some sort of guidance to follow or we'd all be on here complaining we'd been left to it without a clue! Some mums don't have the intuition, I certainly didn't with my first and was grateful for well-researched advice to follow.

I'm thinking she was overdramatising to emphasize the point that early weaners are demonised.

Your 'seriously op? Baby rice' comment is what I'm talking about here. Yes, baby rice. Not poison.

Boom! Give the lady a cookie.

Athena, please see my earlier point about this being the internet, where people tend to be wantonly dramatic. No one's accused anyone of child abuse... yet. There are so many threads where "yet" comes to pass, so I thought I'd just get straight to hyperbole and save us all the drama that goes with.

 

[overcomer79]

same battles different day

 

[lhancock90]

same battles different day

Whyyyyyyyyyyy do I still drag myself into them.

 

[Athena]

A 4 month old is pretty much guaranteed to have an open gut, and since you can't really be sure of when it closes, we're advised to play it safe and wait til 6 months.

"Pretty much guaranteed"? Well, that's okay then, as long as it's pretty much guaranteed we should all just do what we're told without ever questioning anything.

Playing it safe just in case is fine, but just because someone choses not to in this instance doesn't automatically follow that they're child-abusers who are ruining the life and health of their child.

And as I've previously said, current research is currently questioning why rates of allergies are increasing despite later weaning. 6mths is a guideline, not set in stone. I will not be surprised if people are going to be witch hunted on parenting forums in 10yrs time because they haven't started weaning yet, such is tendency for guidelines to change direction every few decades.

If they're full they'll stop.

Really? You clearly don't have my baby boy then, who, given that he was EBF, would quite happily nurse till he vomited it all up each and every time. I had to limit him to one boob per feed for quite a long time because otherwise it'd all come straight back all over the both of us, leaving him even hungrier and me completely out of milk and unable to feed him.

For goodness sake, no one said anything as dramatic as child abuse or ruining lives!!! Jeez

OP baby rice, seriously? It's completely pointless. As a pp said if you really have to wean early then purée up some veg or something.

As for the guideline debate, well there has to be some sort of guidance to follow or we'd all be on here complaining we'd been left to it without a clue! Some mums don't have the intuition, I certainly didn't with my first and was grateful for well-researched advice to follow.

I'm thinking she was overdramatising to emphasize the point that early weaners are demonised.

Your 'seriously op? Baby rice' comment is what I'm talking about here. Yes, baby rice. Not poison.

I don't think anyone's demonising just not agreeing, and giving THEIR opinion of the OP. Same old though, as soon as ppl don't agree blah blah

And yes baby rice, seriously!!! As food for babies it absolutely sucks! From a nutritional point of view it's a complete disaster.

 

[jd83]

My comment was more specifically aimed at the very incorrect assumption that allergies are a rarity.

I agree, and more than increased reporting rates that is causing the rises seen in populations across the globe. It's clearly multi-factorial and complex, and the last thing a mother needs if her child develops food allergies is the guilt about a giving him a bit of baby rice before they were 6mths old.

I suspect that it's more likely due to changing lifestyles: we're exposed to more foods from a young age thanks to air-freighting; we're living in highly sanitized environments that may lead to over-active immune responses to normal day-to-day proteins; hell, it could be the abundance of female hormones in the water supply thanks to the development of the oral contraceptive pill. Who knows? All I know is that it's not as simple as when the baby was weaned, and that the tide of thought is now turning to think that delayed weaning may be compounding the problem.

Black and white. It only exists in Xerox land.

I agree. I definitely think there are many factors involved: early exposure, repeated exposure, predisposure, changing environments, different living conditions, the list goes on and on. Most diseases/allergies/etc occur because of a multitude of factors happening, not just one thing.

Having said that though, I'm definitely in the camp of reducing risks. If I can reduce risks of allergies and digestive issues by waiting s little longer, then why not wait. Just my opinion. And as I said earlier, I also find it to be way more work/mess.

 

[SaraEmily]

Before 6 months, breastmilk/formula is nutritionally superior, better for their digestive system, and SO much easier. So I honestly don't understand why this is such a debated topic. It just doesn't make any sense.

And after 6mths, the UK guidelines recommend that EBF infants are started on vitamin supplementation because breast milk is inadequate. Does it suddenly become inadequate at 6mths? Or has it potentially been becoming increasingly inadequate over the previous few months and month 6 is the point where risks outweigh benefits and supplementation becomes advised?

Note that formula fed babies don't need supplementation. If we follow your logic, the best nutrition for babies is formula for the first 6 months of life and beyond. I'm not saying formula is bad (far from it, those that need to use it do so and credit to them), but there are many who question why formula feed when breast is better.

The point is, it doesn't make sense to you, but it does to another mother for her child. So if she's aware of all the guidelines and issues involved, and she chooses to start weaning before 6mths because that's what she feels is right for her child, who are you to write off her parenting choices?

Babies may be put on a vitamin after 6 months because they need extra iron, because an infant's iron stores are lowest betwen 6-9 months, but this is an issue after 6 months, not leading up to. It's started at 6 months to prevent future problems. But in the US the guideline says even formula fed babies (like my own) should get a vitamin supplement as well because even though formula has added extra iron, it's not absorbed as well as it is with breast milk.

And I'm honestly confused as to how you've taken my post about how breast milk/formula is superior to solid food before 6 months and turned it into breast vs formula.

 

[wemustntpanic]

A 4 month old is pretty much guaranteed to have an open gut, and since you can't really be sure of when it closes, we're advised to play it safe and wait til 6 months.

"Pretty much guaranteed"? Well, that's okay then, as long as it's pretty much guaranteed we should all just do what we're told without ever questioning anything.

Playing it safe just in case is fine, but just because someone choses not to in this instance doesn't automatically follow that they're child-abusers who are ruining the life and health of their child.

And as I've previously said, current research is currently questioning why rates of allergies are increasing despite later weaning. 6mths is a guideline, not set in stone. I will not be surprised if people are going to be witch hunted on parenting forums in 10yrs time because they haven't started weaning yet, such is tendency for guidelines to change direction every few decades.

If they're full they'll stop.

Really? You clearly don't have my baby boy then, who, given that he was EBF, would quite happily nurse till he vomited it all up each and every time. I had to limit him to one boob per feed for quite a long time because otherwise it'd all come straight back all over the both of us, leaving him even hungrier and me completely out of milk and unable to feed him.

For goodness sake, no one said anything as dramatic as child abuse or ruining lives!!! Jeez

OP baby rice, seriously? It's completely pointless. As a pp said if you really have to wean early then purée up some veg or something.

As for the guideline debate, well there has to be some sort of guidance to follow or we'd all be on here complaining we'd been left to it without a clue! Some mums don't have the intuition, I certainly didn't with my first and was grateful for well-researched advice to follow.

I'm thinking she was overdramatising to emphasize the point that early weaners are demonised.

Your 'seriously op? Baby rice' comment is what I'm talking about here. Yes, baby rice. Not poison.

I don't think anyone's demonising just not agreeing, and giving THEIR opinion of the OP. Same old though, as soon as ppl don't agree blah blah

And yes baby rice, seriously!!! As food for babies it absolutely sucks! From a nutritional point of view it's a complete disaster.

I think once again you've proved my point for me. Yes, demonised. Op can give baby rice if she chooses. It may well be nutritionally pointless I'm guessing that's why its added to the milk and not snorted dry.

 

[laodicean]

First, I never called you a child abuser or said you're ruining your child's health.

Never said you did. But when another parent choses to go against guidelines, why say they're not making any sense by doing so? Even if they're not it's their child and therefore none of your business. I don't think it makes any sense for people not to vaccinate their children against every childhood illness that they can, but I'll not question their right to make that choice if that's what they've decided to do after reading around the subject.

That doesn't mean I don't question anything. But why would I question the current safety guidelines for no reason? Current research says it's better, who am I to claim I know better?

And...? I have no problem with that. I actually think you're a good parent because you have read that advice and decided to follow it. I also think the OP is a good parent because, having read the guildelines, she decided to adapt them to what would work best for her child.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe her decision makes no sense and are looking down on her for it.

And that's not a very nice thing to do to another parent. This is meant to be a support forum, etc, etc, blah, blah.

And it's pretty ridiculous to justify your choices by saying "guidelines change all the time, I'm sure in 10 years it'll be different" because we can't know what will happen in 10 years, all we can do is do the best we can, using what we know to be best RIGHT NOW.

I'm a doctor. I'm up to date with the current literature, and also the pathophysiology of human beings. I have made a choice based on my clinical knowledge and what I have read, and also what I have observed of my own child as he has grown up under my care.

YMMV.

 

[laodicean]

And as I said earlier, I also find it to be way more work/mess.

That you won't get any argument with! Perversely though, I enjoy it. I doubt I'll feel the same in 4mths time, but for now I'm enjoying the daily battle to get him to try a bit of food.

Clearly I have issues!

 

[xolynn]

Personally my sons doctor reccomended I give him cereal, pureed fruits/veggies at his last appointment. So far hes had rice cereal(which on the box I see a ton of vitamins/nutrients in so I don't understand why people think it has no value?), and pureed peaches. He loves it and always seems excited to be eating from the spoon, even has tried to take the spoon and feed himself .
OP, I would take his doctors opinion into consideration...its strange though how some doctors reccomend different things than others..however if you feel its whats best for your child than I would continue to do what you are doing. The guildlines are between 4-6 months(6 months reccomended more so) But really do we have to follow the GUIDLINE religiously? Try solids on the exact day your baby turns 6 months or beyond? In my personal opinion, no.

 

[jd83]

And as I said earlier, I also find it to be way more work/mess.

That you won't get any argument with! Perversely though, I enjoy it. I doubt I'll feel the same in 4mths time, but for now I'm enjoying the daily battle to get him to try a bit of food.

Clearly I have issues!

Pfft! Enjoy while you can! Lol! I noe have a 1 yr old who insists on not getting any help, yet only finds his mouth half the time. The other half finds the floor, the wall, the table, his clothes, his face, his hair,......

 

[lhancock90]

Personally my sons doctor reccomended I give him cereal, pureed fruits/veggies at his last appointment. So far hes had rice cereal(which on the box I see a ton of vitamins/nutrients in so I don't understand why people think it has no value?), and pureed peaches. He loves it and always seems excited to be eating from the spoon, even has tried to take the spoon and feed himself .
OP, I would take his doctors opinion into consideration...its strange though how some doctors reccomend different things than others..however if you feel its whats best for your child than I would continue to do what you are doing. The guildlines are between 4-6 months(6 months reccomended more so) But really do we have to follow the GUIDLINE religiously? Try solids on the exact day your baby turns 6 months or beyond? In my personal opinion, no.

I think the rice cereal in the US is different to the UK