Weaning at 3 months

[m.knight]

So, my boy was 8lb 9oz when he was born and has been on the 91st percentile since. He is gaining weight nicely but he has moved to 8oz bottles, and sometimes this wasn't enough.

So we have decided to wean him at 13 weeks. He absolutely loves everything given to him, he takes a spoon beautifully and now opens his mouth for it. We just dived straight in with purees of different sorts and after 10 days of weaning he has 1/2 a jar for breakfast and 1/2 a jar for lunch. Definitely the right thing for us to be doing.

I've read all the research into why you should wait til 6 months to wean (rather flimsy evidence I must say, particularly the rubbish on allergies, and it mostly seems to be an initiative pushed through by the breast feeding alliance - and we don't even breast feed!) but I was wondering - why did mums used to wean their babies at 3 months and what were the reasons for it being the thing to do when it was the recommended age?

 

[sue_88]

You probably won't like what I'm about to say but I mean it as a food scientist and nutritionist and it's not an attack.

Weaning at 13 weeks is dangerous, and also absolutely unnecessary unless in extreme cases of reflux.

Your babies gut flora is so immature that you can be risking irreversible damage which can lead to problems like allergies (not to be ignored!), IBS, and chronic pain in later life.

Your baby is barely just learning to hold their head up and forcing him to swallow thick purée is potentially risking choking which can be fatal.

In all honesty you need to completely stop weaning and provide your LO formula milk to give him the best start in life. Milk has WAY more calories and filling fats than purées.

You also need to educate yourself more on CLEAR sign of weaning readyness, taking 8oz bottles is not one of them.

I hope you take this advice seriously for the sake of your babies future, weaning was introduced earlier years ago but science and research has moved on and it's irresponsible to ignore these guidelines, there are people who've been damaged by early weaning.

 

[lau86]

I honestly don't know how anyone was able to wean at 3 months. Both mine were so floppy at that age and my friends babies were too.
Anyway, I am one for following guidelines. I believe new research has come out that shows the gut is not ready before 6 months, which is why the guidelines changed. I must admit I've started my son slightly early as he is showing signs of readiness but I would never have started at 3 months.

 

[special_kala]

Babies were weaned at 3 months only pretty recently, last 100 years or so, because basically formula became popular and to be honest is was sh#t. It made babies sick, they failed to thrive so they HAD to introduce food.

You read all the research yet decided to ignore all the information coming from very intelligent highly trained professionals?

Birth weight is no reason at all to wean so early. My kids were 8lb12 and 9lb2 and they both last until 6 months.

You are putting your LO at risk or serious allergies and digestive problems here

 

[Pertie]

Can only echo the others.

It really is totally unnecessary and dangerous to wean at 3 months. Why are you in such a rush?

Read up on baby led weaning and gain an understanding of what the true signs of readiness are.

 

[MindUtopia]

Really the reason that babies were weaned so early in the past is because most parents had no other option and didn't know any better. Like someone said above, there was very limited access to formula in the past, so if a baby couldn't breastfeed (mum had died, couldn't latch, etc.), usually the first option was to try to find a wet nurse (that is, someone else to BF baby). That wasn't always possible, especially if a family was poor as wet nurses were paid staff. The next option would be infant formula when it came on the market, but like someone above said, it was of very poor quality and water used to make it often wasn't sterile, so lots of babies died from infections or failed to thrive. Cow's (or other) milk was often used, but that presented the same problems as formula before routine pastuerization. So in those days, the safest option just to keep a baby alive in the early months was to feed solid food. You also see this now in parts of the world that lack clean, safe water. Babies that aren't breastfed (for instance, if mum isn't around because she has to work, or has died, or is HIV-positive, because HIV can be transmitted through BM), can't always be given formula because it's too expensive, inconsistently available, and requires clean water. So babies are often fed a rice mash, similar to our baby rice.

Apart from that, the reason early weaning really took off in the past century was because of the successful marketing of food manufacturers. Companies that make baby food have been very successful at creating a market and a need for their products. It's a very profitable industry and it's very much based on sustaining the cultural belief that babies need early weaning and often that they need certain foods that you have to buy. Of course, you don't have to buy any 'baby food' to feed a baby, but particularly if you are going to feed purees, it's certainly easier to buy them than to make them yourself. There is less of a market for prepared baby foods if you are starting weaning at 6 months as babies at that age can just eat normal foods like you and I eat. These companies have continued to work very hard to make us believe we need to buy their stuff. Back before all these commercial baby foods were introduced, most babies didn't start solids until 6-8 months. You can see how just the availability of a product on the market has helped to shift what we see as normal and expected.

All that being said, apart from the recommendations by the WHO and NHS to wait til 6 months, my advice would be to hold off on weaning simply so you can have more time to spend with your baby doing other things. Weaning is a lot of work. It might be fun for the first couple weeks. But buying, cooking, storing, organizing meals for a baby (or the expense of doing so if you don't make your own) is a lot of added work. I really enjoyed the weaning process and seeing my daughter explore food and learn to enjoy it, but it certainly made things a lot easier to not have to plan around her mealtimes (we could meet friends anytime for lunch out instead of the awkwardly early 12pm) and I didn't have to pack a whole day's worth of snacks, meals, drinks, cups, bowls, etc. in order to spend a day out. We started at 6 months, but I certainly wouldn't start early just so I could enjoy those easy days when all we needed was a couple bottles. It's certainly something just for logistical reasons that's worth delaying so you can enjoy more time when you aren't having to think about all these extra things.

 

[liz1985]

It really winds me up when people wean so early because their baby was big born or drinking lots of milk etc, compleatly ignoring all the advice. My dd was 8lb 10oz born and the last few days has started wanting more milk but she's not ready to wean. I wouldnt even know how to wean a baby that young? Where do you sit them? No where upright? Which is a big choking risk. I was weaned at 12 weeks as that was recomended then, I have eczema and ibs. My friend weaned her lo at about 14 weeks and he developed a really bad gluton and diary allergy. Can I prove there from early weaning? No, but im not willing to take that risk with my child. Someone on my fb started weaning at 6 weeks and her reason was that people always started earlier before its rubbish what were told now. Why are people so eager to ignore research on weaning but not other new advances in research?

I am not a 6months on the dot person I weaned ds at 5.5 months but you really need to research the actual signs of been ready for food, weaning so young is just irresponsible.

 

[wtbmummy]

We started weaning last sunday. Ds was 17 weeks 3days. But he had been showing signs of readiness for two weeks previous. They are just (guidlines) and people should remember that every baby is different.
If you make your own purees. Research the "bad" foods and yourbaby is ready then there is no harm.
Even my hv after seeing ds said that fruit and veg purees after 4months will cause no harm or allergies.
It's because a lot of people buy baby food made by the evil marketing companies that I believe they have changed the guidelines. Have you seen how much sugar is in those pre bought meals????
Also baby rice has no nutritional value therefore is pointless to give your baby.

I say if you think your son is ready then just stick to mashed and pureed fruit and veg until 6months. Then you can go mad and feed them the same as us (watching sugar and salt content of course)

Xx

 

[liz1985]

We started weaning last sunday. Ds was 17 weeks 3days. But he had been showing signs of readiness for two weeks previous. They are just (guidlines) and people should remember that every baby is different.
If you make your own purees. Research the "bad" foods and yourbaby is ready then there is no harm.
Even my hv after seeing ds said that fruit and veg purees after 4months will cause no harm or allergies.
It's because a lot of people buy baby food made by the evil marketing companies that I believe they have changed the guidelines. Have you seen how much sugar is in those pre bought meals????
Also baby rice has no nutritional value therefore is pointless to give your baby.

I say if you think your son is ready then just stick to mashed and pureed fruit and veg until 6months. Then you can go mad and feed them the same as us (watching sugar and salt content of course)

Xx

Even the guidlines and shop bought baby food all state to never feed your baby before 17 weeks. Even though I dont agree with it, it doesnt bother me too much when people wean from 17 weeks as I think information regarding weaning can be misleading and confusing but I dont understand why people would purposely ignore the advise before 17 weeks unless for medical reasons.

 

[sue_88]

I even think it's obsured from 17weeks. Homemade, shop bought whatever the heck other than milk is not good for a young baby.

 

[monkee12]

Wow...

 

[staralfur]

Oh good grief. Do you really think every single major health organization bases their recommendations on 'flimsy evidence'? Are you really so arrogant as to think you've dissected the limited information available to you better than people who have trained for YEARS and have far more research to base decisions on?

Time to stop ignoring widely accepted medical advice for the sake of your own pride and do what's best for your baby.

 

[zorak]

I athae 3 months is way too early for the digestive tract. My LO was 9 lbs 10 Oz at birth, so really birth weight has nothing to do with it. I did wean 'early' In that we started at 5 months but even then we went extremely slowly.

 

[zorak]

Agree, stupid phone!

 

[BabyMamma93]

i read so im going to comment.
IMO some of the comments are a bit harsh!!
they could have been put more nicely,

i personally dont think i would wean at 3 months, my little boy is almost 2 month i couldnt imagine him having anything other than formula at that age, hes only just holding his head and trying to stand.. but again thats my opinion.
I get all these guidlines and recommendations but tbh they are only to cover peoples backs if anything was to happen..
my mum weaned me and my sister (both born around 6lb) at 3 months, she said maybe earlier but thats what she told HV, this was giving us food they was eating and baby puddings. im fine NO allergies, no tummy problems nothing, just a really good immune system,. im not saying because me and my sissy are fine that everyone elses baby will be, but i dont understand why when i was a baby people gave foods no problem, now 21 years later its so frowned upon.
I may or may not start with fruit purees (home made) when my LB turns 4 month, who knows..

i guess all im saying is people shouldnt be too quick to be harsh and maybe just give their opinions in a polite way

 

[staralfur]

I get all these guidlines and recommendations but tbh they are only to cover peoples backs if anything was to happen..

I hate this mentality that it's impossible for any large organization to actually have anyone's best interests in mind. What exactly do you think the World Health Organization is "covering their backs" from? It is their JOB to make recommendations that are most likely to keep children healthy.

It does get a bit tricky when you look at say, baby food manufacturers, because they have conflicting interests (they want to make money from you as soon as possible). But the baby food manufacturers aren't the ones encouraging later weaning; quite the opposite. What would you suggest a public health organization's conflicting interests are, just out of curiosity?

Health organizations publish guidelines and recommendations based on an abundance of carefully analyzed research. Those recommendations are a result of trained professionals telling everyone else what they believe is going to give our children the best start in life. It's not a "oh we should probably pull some numbers out of thin air to save our asses" situation.

my mum weaned me and my sister (both born around 6lb) at 3 months, she said maybe earlier but thats what she told HV, this was giving us food they was eating and baby puddings. im fine NO allergies, no tummy problems nothing, just a really good immune system,. im not saying because me and my sissy are fine that everyone elses baby will be, but i dont understand why when i was a baby people gave foods no problem, now 21 years later its so frowned upon.
I may or may not start with fruit purees (home made) when my LB turns 4 month, who knows..

Because science evolves. People are constantly finding better ways to do things. You know, I'm sure there were people in the 50s/60s who smoked and drank during pregnancy whose babies turned out fine. But thankfully, we know better now, because there were a lot of kids who weren't fine. Saying medical advice can't be legit because it was different 20, 40, however many years ago is kind of a ridiculous argument.

 

[Popples1]

I really don't understand the rush some people feel to get on with weaning. Sure, introducing baby to all these news flavours is exciting but why do it at a stage where their little bodies aren't ready for it? Everything I've read says their digestive systems aren't read to process solids until 17 weeks. There doesn't seem to be any benefit from such early weaning but there ARE documented (and well backed up) risks... Why take them?

 

[randomrach]

I'm not sure why you would stop increasing formula at 8oz, there's no reason why you couldn't increase to 9/10oz and hold off weaning for another month. My dd was big and hungry, being born 9lb3 and managed on formula until 5 months, I don't see that it's relevant here.

I don't believe that the research is 'iffy' or that the guidelines are to cover anyone's back, even if the research does suggest a link between early weaning and allergies or digestive problems it would be completely impossible to prove the cause, making it fairly impossible to take legal action against anyone.

Personally, I would not wean that early but obviously I cannot stop you from doing so, I hope you do read some of the responses here and if you choose to continue at least seek the advice of a paediatrician.

 

[BabyMamma93]

i do get what people are saying, like i said I personally wouldnt wean my little one any earlier than 5 months, and if i decide i will then, no ones opinion that its 'too early' will probably stop me, i do undertsnad babies bodies cant handle food before 6 months but what i meant by 'covering their backs' is if someone said it is ok to give food before 6 months and someone did feed at say 3 months and something happened you could obviously shift the blame onto them, and probably sue, it doesn't actually mean everyone's baby will die or become seriously ill.
i also still don't see why 20 years ago my mum fed me food at 2-3 months i was never ill, never am ill. yes i get that science has changed, and evolved, but that doesn't mean just because science has, food all of a sudden is this major bad thing for under 6m.. i also DO understand that formula/BM has everything a baby under 6month needs, im not trying to start a debate i was just stating what i think, and yes i am more than likely wrong, and again thats why im not feeding food at -6m

 

[Pearls18]

Your child has to have this digestive system FOR LIFE, think about that next time you choose to disregard evidence as "flimsy" unless you're about to declare your PhD in infant nutrition.

It genuinely worries me how parents can convince themselves. 3 months is far too young, the very minimum should be 17 weeks, PLEASE go talk to your HV, I can't believe there is any HV as many bad ones as there can be who would condone this.

Guess what, my eldest was on the 91st centile, he was 20lb and 6 months before he ate his first solid, I won't go into all the reasons as to why I know this has benefitted him, but we managed it, it's possible, even if he is hungry that doesn't matter his digestive system isn't ready, you give more milk as that us the only thing that will nutritionally benefit him, you will be starving him of nutrients if you give anything but milk at this age, simple as.

Sorry I've not really held back but this thread is ludicrous.