Shocked by doctor re: weaning

[AppleBlossom]

Although I agree in principle that you should always try and stick to the guidelines where a child is concerned, it has to be stressed that they're not set in stone. How many of you on here have or do co-sleep with your LO's? It is recommended that you shouldn't co-sleep because of the risk of SIDS but people still do it anyway. Who here formula fed/feeds? It is recommended that you breastfeed but not everyone does.

But if people co-sleep/formula feed it is because they see the benefit in it.

What is the benefit of early weaning? "My baby was hungry" > were they starving?

Please, someone tell me, because I see NO benefit at all and a lot of potential harm.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but I just don't understand what harm it would cause a child if you just wait.

But there's a risk with everything. Co-sleeping might have the benefit of your child sleeping better but it also has the risk of SIDS. Formula feeding might have the benefits of sustaining nutrients but has the "risks" (I use quotation marks as I have never experienced any of these with my FF child) of being more prone to allergies as just one example.

Baby's digestive systems develop differently at different times which is why 6 months is the recommended age. If you take a look at jars, you will find most of the 1st stage ones will say "from 4 months" on. So to some parents and their children, there is a benefit. Of course there are risks as there are with every other thing you choose to do with your child but as a parent, you weigh up the pros and cons and decide what is the best way to go. And for some, they are willing to take the risks. I wouldn't say to someone who co-sleeps "You shouldn't co-sleep because your child may be in danger from SIDS" the same as I wouldn't say to someone who weaned before 6 months "You shouldn't wean at 4 months, your LO might get problems with digestion late on in life." Unfortunately we can't all live based on "what if's" and "maybe's"

 

[blondey]

I don't co sleep, but I thought they say (although I have no idea who 'they' are lol) that if done correctly it doesn't have any impact on SIDS?

I seriously don't know why some people get sooooooo wound up about things like this.

People have their own opinions and from reading this thread, and many like it, aren't going to change them based on a thread. I am not saying these threads shouldn't exist though as there may be a mummy with a newborn out there who might find it useful.

I always thought I was quite up for a debate, but to be honest, I must be losing my touch!!

Yes there are guidelines and personally I think guidelines are there for a reason and are usually based on fact and research. I will try and stick as close as possible to the guidelines, but also use my common sense in conjunction with them.

If people chose to follow their own instincts, then no issue, but people shouldn't assume the guidelines are wrong or not based on research, just because their friends mum's neighbour weaned her baby at 2months and was fine.

anyone? Mellow the mood......

 

[blondey]

And what we ALL say and agree on is .......... all babies are different! You do what is right for your baby! They arnt robots and they certainly weren't designed to follow a rule or guideline book!

Wouldn't life be boring if we all parented the same and our babies were all the same!!!

 

[julietz]

At the end of the day, I dont think that a woman on here who DOSEN'T agree with early weaning will change the mind of a woman who DOES or WILL wean early, it's your own personal choice, so arguing it out like your in court or something is just daft.

Guidelines are there just to say "the guidelines are there, if you dont choose to follown them, on your back be it" the same with the guidelines and recommendations are to breastfeed, hence no offers being allowed on formula or adverts BUT there are baby products on the shelves from 4months and this is down as STAGE 1 weaning. If you werent SUPPOSED to wean, surely the products would not be allowed to be on the shelf?

If 1 baby, tragically dies from pre-making a bottle for example, the guidelines and recommendations will say do not pre-make, and they are, but the WHO have advised on the safest way to pre-make. So if 1 baby developes an allergy to food because its mother chose to wean early, guidelines and recommendations will change accordingly.

IYKWIM

couldn't agree more

 

[xemmax]

Although I agree in principle that you should always try and stick to the guidelines where a child is concerned, it has to be stressed that they're not set in stone. How many of you on here have or do co-sleep with your LO's? It is recommended that you shouldn't co-sleep because of the risk of SIDS but people still do it anyway. Who here formula fed/feeds? It is recommended that you breastfeed but not everyone does.

But if people co-sleep/formula feed it is because they see the benefit in it.

What is the benefit of early weaning? "My baby was hungry" > were they starving?

Please, someone tell me, because I see NO benefit at all and a lot of potential harm.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but I just don't understand what harm it would cause a child if you just wait.

But there's a risk with everything. Co-sleeping might have the benefit of your child sleeping better but it also has the risk of SIDS. Formula feeding might have the benefits of sustaining nutrients but has the "risks" (I use quotation marks as I have never experienced any of these with my FF child) of being more prone to allergies as just one example.

Baby's digestive systems develop differently at different times which is why 6 months is the recommended age. If you take a look at jars, you will find most of the 1st stage ones will say "from 4 months" on. So to some parents and their children, there is a benefit. Of course there are risks as there are with every other thing you choose to do with your child but as a parent, you weigh up the pros and cons and decide what is the best way to go. And for some, they are willing to take the risks. I wouldn't say to someone who co-sleeps "You shouldn't co-sleep because your child may be in danger from SIDS" the same as I wouldn't say to someone who weaned before 6 months "You shouldn't wean at 4 months, your LO might get problems with digestion late on in life." Unfortunately we can't all live based on "what if's" and "maybe's"

But I'm not denying there are risks in other things, I am asking what the benefits are of early weaning. What are the benefits?

As for the 4 months thing - this is because the labels have not been changed since the recommendation to wean at 6 months came in. It is because they have not been told they have to change them. They are not allowed by law to say suitable from birth, but if they were, they would say that.

 

[KatelynsMummy]

I can't believe this is still going

 

[xemmax]

I can't believe this is still going

Then you haven't been in Baby Club long enough!

 

[My_First]

This isn't an argument, it's a genuine question - babies are born early/late/on time, they grow and develop at different rates. What if your babys digestive system matures early and you ignore the signs and religiously stick to the 6month guideline. I'm genuinely asking - is that ok? Or can it cause problems for baby getting hungry? I really don't know the answer.

I think as long as they are getting milk they wont every truly be hungry hun.

Food before 1 is just for fun.

xxx

Im sorry, but I believed that the iron stores that they are born with start depleting by around month 6, hence the need to wean. In my post nateal class a girl had premature twins, on the advice of her HV she has been suggested to wean her girls early as their iron levels will be decreased sooner than in a full term infant...

 

[summer rain]

I think the doctor meant if it slows down too much but I dunno. Are babies supposed to double their birth weight by 6 months?

I think as a guide they say they should triple their birthweight by a year but it depends how big your baby was. If they were 5/6 lb then it's doable but if your baby was 9/10 lb it's not allways healthy for them to put weight on that fast. Niamh was 8lb15 born and at nearly 7 months shes only 15lb15. Aslong at they are happy and developing normally then weight alone isent a factor when you need to start

They used to advise some years ago that babies should double their birthweight by 4 months and for babies born up to 7 pounds this is likely; but for babies above in some cases if they do double their birthweight by that time they will be gaining more weight than may be healthy. I believe the 4 months recommendation was based on interpreting the really old 1970s charts that were based on white babies in Ohio that were only FF and solids were introduced at 6 weeks or something, but if you look at the new charts most babies will be expected to double their birthweight between 5 and 6 months; if they stay on the same centile they were born on. Had my son stayed on the same centile he would have doubled his birthweight at 20 weeks; according to the chart but since he has dropped a centile he doubled it at 24 weeks. Also the new charts expect more like 2 and a half times birthweight at one year as opposed to tripled xx

 

[AppleBlossom]

Although I agree in principle that you should always try and stick to the guidelines where a child is concerned, it has to be stressed that they're not set in stone. How many of you on here have or do co-sleep with your LO's? It is recommended that you shouldn't co-sleep because of the risk of SIDS but people still do it anyway. Who here formula fed/feeds? It is recommended that you breastfeed but not everyone does.

But if people co-sleep/formula feed it is because they see the benefit in it.

What is the benefit of early weaning? "My baby was hungry" > were they starving?

Please, someone tell me, because I see NO benefit at all and a lot of potential harm.

I'm not trying to offend anyone but I just don't understand what harm it would cause a child if you just wait.

But there's a risk with everything. Co-sleeping might have the benefit of your child sleeping better but it also has the risk of SIDS. Formula feeding might have the benefits of sustaining nutrients but has the "risks" (I use quotation marks as I have never experienced any of these with my FF child) of being more prone to allergies as just one example.

Baby's digestive systems develop differently at different times which is why 6 months is the recommended age. If you take a look at jars, you will find most of the 1st stage ones will say "from 4 months" on. So to some parents and their children, there is a benefit. Of course there are risks as there are with every other thing you choose to do with your child but as a parent, you weigh up the pros and cons and decide what is the best way to go. And for some, they are willing to take the risks. I wouldn't say to someone who co-sleeps "You shouldn't co-sleep because your child may be in danger from SIDS" the same as I wouldn't say to someone who weaned before 6 months "You shouldn't wean at 4 months, your LO might get problems with digestion late on in life." Unfortunately we can't all live based on "what if's" and "maybe's"

But I'm not denying there are risks in other things, I am asking what the benefits are of early weaning. What are the benefits?

As for the 4 months thing - this is because the labels have not been changed since the recommendation to wean at 6 months came in. It is because they have not been told they have to change them. They are not allowed by law to say suitable from birth, but if they were, they would say that.

There will be a benefit to someone somewhere. Just because it wouldn't benefit everybody doesn't mean there are none.

Anyway, like I've said a number of times. It's a guideline that comes with risks. Some people will follow it. Others won't and will take their chances on the risks. It's just a fact and it occurs in pretty much in every way we live our lives. I risk my life just stepping out of the door every day. I could be hit by a car. But I don't remain housebound. I know that's a very loose example but you get my drift. I, for one, am not offended by people suggesting my way of parenting was wrong. I hear it all the time because I FFed, used CIO, used a FF car seat at 9 months etc. According to some people on here, I'm probably one of the worst mothers going lol but I know that my child is healthy and happy because of the choices I made and I would make them all again if I had to

 

[xemmax]

AB I think you're misinterpretting what I'm saying. I am not denying that people go against guidelines, I'm not saying people don't take risks, I'm not saying people SHOULD blindly follow a guideline.

I'm saying that with all decisions there are risks and there are benefits.

eg:
Co-sleeping - there are potential risks if you co-sleep unsafely, but there are benefits to breastfeeding
Formula feeding - risks of allergies, positives of less stigma when feeding in public

Early weaning - risk of putting strain on an undeveloped digestive system resulting in potentially life long problems... benefits = ????????

To all the other choices when people CHOOSE to go against a guideline, it is almost always evident that they do this because they believe in the benefits from it.
Why would people CHOOSE to do something with no benefits? If there are benefits, I don't know what they are.

 

[elephant29]

This isn't an argument, it's a genuine question - babies are born early/late/on time, they grow and develop at different rates. What if your babys digestive system matures early and you ignore the signs and religiously stick to the 6month guideline. I'm genuinely asking - is that ok? Or can it cause problems for baby getting hungry? I really don't know the answer.

I think as long as they are getting milk they wont every truly be hungry hun.

Food before 1 is just for fun.

xxx

Im sorry, but I believed that the iron stores that they are born with start depleting by around month 6, hence the need to wean. In my post nateal class a girl had premature twins, on the advice of her HV she has been suggested to wean her girls early as their iron levels will be decreased sooner than in a full term infant...

Yeah this is correct but most people will be weaning by 6 months therefore they will be introducing iron into their babies diet. It still doesnt stop food being just for fun and no need for huge emphasis to be placed on it

The aim of weaning is gradually to introduce a variety of tastes and textures so that, by the age of one, your LO's enjoying a varied and healthy diet.

xxx

 

[hivechild]

This isn't an argument, it's a genuine question - babies are born early/late/on time, they grow and develop at different rates. What if your babys digestive system matures early and you ignore the signs and religiously stick to the 6month guideline. I'm genuinely asking - is that ok? Or can it cause problems for baby getting hungry? I really don't know the answer.

I think as long as they are getting milk they wont every truly be hungry hun.

Food before 1 is just for fun.

xxx

Im sorry, but I believed that the iron stores that they are born with start depleting by around month 6, hence the need to wean. In my post nateal class a girl had premature twins, on the advice of her HV she has been suggested to wean her girls early as their iron levels will be decreased sooner than in a full term infant...

They begin to deplete starting around 6 months, but most babies delivered at or around full term have sufficient supplies to carry them through the first year. A lot of doctors don't even test, or won't do a check for iron levels until the child is 1+ years unless there's cause for concern.

Premature babies often have concerns with their iron levels because they didn't get a chance for their supplies to build up enough in utero, which is one of the reasons they end up having to wean earlier than 6 months. It's an exception, which I think everyone can agree upon, is one of those cases where it's medically indicated and worth taking the calculated risk. It does not hold up in a debate as reason for a healthy, at term baby to wean.

 

[AppleBlossom]

AB I think you're misinterpretting what I'm saying. I am not denying that people go against guidelines, I'm not saying people don't take risks, I'm not saying people SHOULD blindly follow a guideline.

I'm saying that with all decisions there are risks and there are benefits.

eg:
Co-sleeping - there are potential risks if you co-sleep unsafely, but there are benefits to breastfeeding
Formula feeding - risks of allergies, positives of less stigma when feeding in public

Early weaning - risk of putting strain on an undeveloped digestive system resulting in potentially life long problems... benefits = ????????

To all the other choices when people CHOOSE to go against a guideline, it is almost always evident that they do this because they believe in the benefits from it.
Why would people CHOOSE to do something with no benefits? If there are benefits, I don't know what they are.

I knew what you meant. All I was saying was, you personally might not see a benefit to it. Others will. I was a young mother, had no help from FOB with anything because she was "my forte" and for a little over 4 months, me and G were both getting no more than a collective 4 hours extremely broken sleep a night. She would wake up every night, not just during growth spurts, because she wanted feeding. She had always been a "greedy" baby, which is why I had to stop BFing and she was put on hungrier baby milk when she was 2 months old. I took her to a baby group once and the MW asked how she slept and I said she didn't as she was always up crying for a bottle (before anyone says anything, I know it was milk she was after, as I knew what her different cries meant) The MW asked had I started weaning and I said no and that I didn't feel like she was ready yet. She said I should consider it, just to see how she took it. I took it on board but I didn't try it. It wasn't until she was a few days off being 5 months that I decided to give it a go. The 4 hours broken sleep went to 5 hours broken sleep, to 6 hours... By the time she was 6 months she was sleeping through the night and has done ever since. She has never had any complications with anything because of when I weaned her, she has never been overweight, she isn't fussy about food (some people seem to think if you wean on pureed food/baby rice then they will not develop a good pallette)
In a roundabout way, there was a benefit to us. Neither of us could function properly on the tiny amounts of sleep we were getting and I saw a massive improvement in her interactive skills during the day once we started weaning.

And people can look at me in disgust and say I'm wrong for weaning when I did but to them I say, behave. Lol. If you don't like it, don't do it. I don't like the ide of co-sleeping. I didn't go on about it or try and belittle anyone who did it (not saying people are belittleing others on this thread, just mean in general) I just decided I wouldn't be doing it with my child and I moved on. If you feel it's unecessary to wean your child before 6 months then that is quite rightly your perogative. Just as it is for those who do wean between 4-6 months.

 

[Fabby]

i think this thread should be drawn to a close

 

[louandivy]

Why? No one is personally attacking anyone and there is nothing wrong with voicing differing opinions

 

[Fabby]

Why? No one is personally attacking anyone and there is nothing wrong with voicing differing opinions

Its the same all the way through though, Getting a bit pointless i think now.

 

[xnewxmummyx]

its not like we want to feed them pizza and chips is it.

xx

 

[PepsiChic]

Why? No one is personally attacking anyone and there is nothing wrong with voicing differing opinions

Its the same all the way through though, Getting a bit pointless i think now.

then stop reading it.

im enjoying this thread, its a good debate with lots of information and no arguing.

 

[AppleBlossom]

I don't think it needs to be closed, nothing wrong with voicing your opinions. We're all different, that's what makes us interesting even in regards to what we do with our children