change to advice re. weaning?

[lozzy21]

Even if they change the guidelines i dont think il start any earlier than 5 and a half months anyway. I couldent have imadgined feeding Niamh solids at 4 months, she was still a baby baby then.

 

[PepsiChic]

I heard that it may go back to four months.

Agree with a pp though and guidelines should state anywhere from four-six months and leave it to the parents to decide. Every baby is different after all.

When my daughter was a baby, the guidlines were four months. She was weaned a little bit before four months and she is a healthy nearly eight year old.

I wean Harrison at 5 months, because I wanted to cut out the need for purees and then introducing lumps, I just wanted to go straight for the lumps.

Parents know their children best and they should not be judged or jumped on if they decide to wean early.

The guidlines now are not to wait until 6 months, but wean anywhere from 17-26 weeks. Keeping it as close to 26 weeks as possible.

i think thats one of the biggest problems (im not saying you personally im saying in general) and it was already mentioned int his thread. that people look at the guideline, and are too easily tempted to wean before it. if 4 months was set at the minimum people would still be tempted to wean earlier then that. if say the guideline was set at 5-7 months, and people did wean slightly earlier then 5 months it wouldnt be as harmful to the babys digestive system.

 

[BabyJayne]

I heard that it may go back to four months.

Agree with a pp though and guidelines should state anywhere from four-six months and leave it to the parents to decide. Every baby is different after all.

When my daughter was a baby, the guidlines were four months. She was weaned a little bit before four months and she is a healthy nearly eight year old.

I wean Harrison at 5 months, because I wanted to cut out the need for purees and then introducing lumps, I just wanted to go straight for the lumps.

Parents know their children best and they should not be judged or jumped on if they decide to wean early.

The guidlines now are not to wait until 6 months, but wean anywhere from 17-26 weeks. Keeping it as close to 26 weeks as possible.

i think thats one of the biggest problems (im not saying you personally im saying in general) and it was already mentioned int his thread. that people look at the guideline, and are too easily tempted to wean before it. if 4 months was set at the minimum people would still be tempted to wean earlier then that. if say the guideline was set at 5-7 months, and people did wean slightly earlier then 5 months it wouldnt be as harmful to the babys digestive system.

Four months is still the minimum though. WHO guidelines say to breastfeed until 6 months, not formula feed until 6 months or do not give solids until 6 months. It is all so open to interpretation.

Given the figure that only 2 per cent of people in the 2005 study adhered to the 6 month recommendation in the UK, how relevant is the guideline? (Not specifically asking you Pepsi - just throwing it out there ).

 

[BabyJayne]

I think we should give more credit to mums here - the vast majority would not just steam in and wean their child at 3 months if the guideline is changed to 4 months. There may be some that will, but that could happen regardless.

No guideline would have changed the fact that Madeline was ready for solids at 4.5 months. I'm all for mummy knows best - and they know when they might be ready, whether that be at 4 months, 6 months or 8 months. They know their babies - not some faceless bureaucrat.

The vast majority DID wean at 3 months before the guideline changed to 6 months in 2003; 80-odd percent is the vast majority. This is the governments infant feeding surveys; this is where these statistics come from. I have filled them in myself when they did the 2005 one (I remember them sending it in more than one part, not long after birth and then at 4-6 months) and they did ask if baby was given any solids prior to 4 months.

This is misleading.

The vast majority did wean then because the advice in 1990 and until 1994 from WHO was breastfeeding for at least 3 months. So weaning at that age was acceptable. In 1990, seven out of 10 mothers (70 per cent, not 80-odd) had introduced solids by three months.

In 1994 it changed to "the majority of infants should not be given solid foods before the age of four months, and a mixed diet should be offered by six months." It says majority of infants - that is misleading. This advice stood until 2003 in Britain. Yet figures show that only 24 per cent had introduced solids by three months in 2000 (nowhere near 80-odd and this was before the guidelines changed), and only 10 per cent in 2005. Seeing as in 2000 the advice was still "the majority of infants should not be given solids by three months" - 24 per cent would fit in with this.

The studies also show that just 2 per cent follow the guideline of waiting until 6 months to introduce solids.

So - I stick with what I said in the beginning. Somebody sitting round a table in a nondescript building does not know when my daughter is ready for solid foods.

She is not a generalisation, she is my little one with her own needs, wants and personality. Given that, I make the decision on what is best for her. And I wholeheartedly support the right of every other mum to do that for their baby, whether that means giving baby rice at 3.5 months, 4 months or after 6 months.

If anyone wants to look at one of the feeding studies - here is a link.

https://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publ... (Chapter 7) Introduction of solid foods.pdf

The 85% figure (sorry it was 85, not 81) is from the 2000 infant feeding survey when the recommended age had been 4 months for quite some years it relates to those who introduced solids anytime before 4 months (up to 17 weeks) I never said before THREE months.

There has been a marked trend towards mothers introducing solid foods later in 2005
compared with 2000. For example, in 2000 85% of mothers had introduced solid
foods by four months, but by 2005 this figure had fallen to 51%. This shift is evident in
all countries and continues a longer-term trend in this direction.

https://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publ... (Chapter 7) Introduction of solid foods.pdf

I have read other data/reports which clarify that by four months they mean by 17 weeks; not anytime during the 4th month. So the report you also posted is clearly backing up the figures I posted earlier. The bar chart (fig 7.1) also shows this clearly.

since introducing solids before 17 weeks (even a week early) is widely known to not be a good idea, unless there are medical reasons where the benefits may outweigh the risks; anything they can do to deter parents from thinking before 4 months is ok; is a good move to be honest. Of course you'll always get people who ignore any guidelines and decide to do the opposite but generally it does seem that if a guideline is set at an older age; the percentage of parents going against the guideline at a considerably younger age than that decreases.

Sorry - you said weaned at three months (The vast majority DID wean at 3 months before the guideline changed to 6 months in 2003; 80-odd percent is the vast majority. ) I was responding to this - I said it was misleading because to me it read like you were saying 80-odd per cent weaned at three months old before the guidelines changed. Many people will take this literally as being dead on three months old. There is a marked difference in a baby aged 12/13 weeks and one aged 16/17 weeks - I just thought it was important to make that bit clearer.

I agree that it is important that each baby is weaned when it is ready - and not just because a guideline says so. But I think this lies in education and support from health professionals - not just in a statutory statement. So if it did change to 4-6 months, it would be down to HVs, midwives and GPs to help mothers - just the same as it is now with the guideline at 6 months.

 

[summer rain]

I meant 3+ months and have now amended my original post accordingly; and the information in the infant feeding survey does say still quantify the figures I gave. Anytime between 3-4 months (pre 17 weeks) is still too early with regard to the risks outlined in various research.

 

[summer rain]

I heard that it may go back to four months.

Agree with a pp though and guidelines should state anywhere from four-six months and leave it to the parents to decide. Every baby is different after all.

When my daughter was a baby, the guidlines were four months. She was weaned a little bit before four months and she is a healthy nearly eight year old.

I wean Harrison at 5 months, because I wanted to cut out the need for purees and then introducing lumps, I just wanted to go straight for the lumps.

Parents know their children best and they should not be judged or jumped on if they decide to wean early.

The guidlines now are not to wait until 6 months, but wean anywhere from 17-26 weeks. Keeping it as close to 26 weeks as possible.

i think thats one of the biggest problems (im not saying you personally im saying in general) and it was already mentioned int his thread. that people look at the guideline, and are too easily tempted to wean before it. if 4 months was set at the minimum people would still be tempted to wean earlier then that. if say the guideline was set at 5-7 months, and people did wean slightly earlier then 5 months it wouldnt be as harmful to the babys digestive system.

Four months is still the minimum though. WHO guidelines say to breastfeed until 6 months, not formula feed until 6 months or do not give solids until 6 months. It is all so open to interpretation.

Given the figure that only 2 per cent of people in the 2005 study adhered to the 6 month recommendation in the UK, how relevant is the guideline? (Not specifically asking you Pepsi - just throwing it out there ).

2% is still an increase on previous years though, it can be seen from the 2005 survey that the number weaning at any age after 17 weeks had hugely increased since the year 2000 and even more so since 3 months was the actual recommended age. I do think if the 6 months guideline is in place long enough then over time more and more parents will decide to wait until 6 months. In the early 70s the weaning age was 6 weeks; and giving solids 'as late' as four months would have been really radical, and you'd still find giving solids at six weeks was relatively common up until many years later but you won't find really any parents giving solids at that age now. It takes time. In the early 90s most parents would give at least a quilt and often a pillow to young babies; even from newborn, does that mean the FSIDs should not have advised parents to change to only using pillows and quilts after 12 months; as only a minority would have taken notice of this advice at first and it would thus be 'irrelevant?'

 

[BabyJayne]

Four months is still the minimum though. WHO guidelines say to breastfeed until 6 months, not formula feed until 6 months or do not give solids until 6 months. It is all so open to interpretation.

Given the figure that only 2 per cent of people in the 2005 study adhered to the 6 month recommendation in the UK, how relevant is the guideline? (Not specifically asking you Pepsi - just throwing it out there ).

2% is still an increase on previous years though, it can be seen from the 2005 survey that the number weaning at any age after 17 weeks had hugely increased since the year 2000 and even more so since 3 months was the actual recommended age. I do think if the 6 months guideline is in place long enough then over time more and more parents will decide to wait until 6 months. In the early 70s the weaning age was 6 weeks; and giving solids 'as late' as four months would have been really radical, and you'd still find giving solids at six weeks was relatively common up until many years later but you won't find really any parents giving solids at that age now. It takes time. In the early 90s most parents would give at least a quilt and often a pillow to young babies; even from newborn, does that mean the FSIDs should not have advised parents to change to only using pillows and quilts after 12 months; as only a minority would have taken notice of this advice at first and it would thus be 'irrelevant?'

Of course not - that's not worthy of comparison as due to the fact it had a direct influence on infant mortality and actually saved lives. This does not come down to the individual baby's wants and needs - it's a fundamental guideline that helps keep your baby as safe as possible. It's of no similarity at all.

I just think the 6 months guideline is ambiguous - it actually says babies "should be exclusively breastfed until 6 months". This immediately rules many mothers out, who for whatever reason formula feed. What applies to them? They are already going against WHO guidelines - so it's particularly unhelpful to them from whatever age they stop breastfeeding/expressing - if they even started at all.

If the guideline had been in place for 100 years, it wouldn't have changed the fact that Madeline would not have been sustained on milk alone until she was 6 months old. If we have another baby, it might be different. I certainly wouldn't wean at 19/20 weeks because that's what we did the first time. I would be guided by my baby.

I see your points, and agree on most of them. I think before 17 weeks is too early as a general rule. But I also think as a general rule, 6 months can be too late. It is not nice to think of a baby being given solids before they are ready - but it's equally not nice to think of a baby not being given them because a guideline says so.

I just don't think there is a blanket rule that governs every baby and this should be reflected if possible.

P.s - This has been interesting - and hopefully informative!

 

[summer rain]

It bis worthy of comparison because weaning too early can lead to serious health problems; leading to a shorter life in the long run, ok its not as instant as suffocating from unsuitable bedding but it could affect someone's quality of life in the longer term. That isn't even considering the rare occurances where a baby being weaned too early will lead to them choking on food they cannot handle, or suffering a fatal bowel blockage, or an allergic reaction either at the time or later in life due to allergies that the early weaning was probably a big part of. I thought my eldest was ready at 17 weeks and he showed a lot of the signs; but he developed severe constipation and it actually made his weight gain a lot worse even though I was giving him high calorie foods and he was eating a lot in addition to milk; his weight gain dropped from 8oz a week between 12 and 20 weeks, to 2oz a week after 20 weeks. He then dropped all his milk feeds at 7.5 months and I had to end up putting all his milk in food to make up for it. I do believe these problems were caused by weaning him before he was actually physically ready. My others simply were not ready before six months; plus they were doing fine on milk alone; sleeping through, perfectly happy, not at all interested in us eating, not reaching out and grabbing food etc. This included my one son who was FF at that age, if anything he was ready the latest. I was perfectly willing to start them whenever they were ready but in our case they were not ready anytime before six months. My youngest has only now just started showing an interest and he is less than two weeks away from 26 weeks. I believe the case is the same for many other babies but so many parents are pressured into weaning earlier than they do feel is best for their babies; due to pressure from friends, family and even health care professionals.

 

[BabyJayne]

It bis worthy of comparison because weaning too early can lead to serious health problems; leading to a shorter life in the long run, ok its not as instant as suffocating from unsuitable bedding but it could affect someone's quality of life in the longer term. That isn't even considering the rare occurances where a baby being weaned too early will lead to them choking on food they cannot handle, or suffering a fatal bowel blockage, or an allergic reaction either at the time or later in life due to allergies that the early weaning was probably a big part of. I thought my eldest was ready at 17 weeks and he showed a lot of the signs; but he developed severe constipation and it actually made his weight gain a lot worse even though I was giving him high calorie foods and he was eating a lot in addition to milk; his weight gain dropped from 8oz a week between 12 and 20 weeks, to 2oz a week after 20 weeks. He then dropped all his milk feeds at 7.5 months and I had to end up putting all his milk in food to make up for it. I do believe these problems were caused by weaning him before he was actually physically ready. My others simply were not ready before six months; plus they were doing fine on milk alone; sleeping through, perfectly happy, not at all interested in us eating, not reaching out and grabbing food etc. This included my one son who was FF at that age, if anything he was ready the latest. I was perfectly willing to start them whenever they were ready but in our case they were not ready anytime before six months. My youngest has only now just started showing an interest and he is less than two weeks away from 26 weeks. I believe the case is the same for many other babies but so many parents are pressured into weaning earlier than they do feel is best for their babies; due to pressure from friends, family and even health care professionals.

I'm sorry to disagree - I just think there is a world of difference in not telling people the safest way to put your baby down to sleep and saying weaning age is between 4-6 months. In my mind there is absolutely no comparison.

"or an allergic reaction either at the time or later in life due to allergies that the early weaning was probably a big part of" - You can find studies that also say weaning before 6 months can prevent food allergies, and doctors are actually working on this now (article from The Independent last year - see the bottom section on possible causes https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...hildren-suffering-food-allergies-2048120.html). I'm not saying I believe this either - but statements like the above one aren't qualified. It is impossible to say that if someone develops an allergy then early weaning or late weaning was probably a big part of it. You can say that family history of allergies was probably a big part of it, because that is medically accepted. You can see from the article that doctors think there are multiple causes, and this article in particular states that it has been disproved about early weaning and allergies. My little brother has a severe egg allergy. I am 8 years older than him, and my other brother 6 years older than him. I imagine I was weaned earlier than him, as was my other brother - yet we have no food allergies. This does not prove any point, but you can't say "that early weaning was probably a big part of it". These are things that people pick out and pick up on - and it's not a balanced view.

Other than that we are essentially saying the same thing. You said you were willing to wean when your LO was ready - but that they were not ready before 6 months. That's great. But mine was. And that's fine too.