Are there circumstances to wean before 6months?

[JD.Deedee]

Y'all care to post links to actual research that backs up your personal preference ? If we're going to be making informed choices...

Like the person who has a family member or something that's a doctor, you mind sharing the conclusion paper from the research they recently have done with weaning from 4 months. And those adamant about the chance in the bowel between 4-6 m post about that...

I'll have a read, I don't care how long it is.. I've got time for that.. For now.

And indeed stop bickering, let's have the circumstances that it's okay to wean prior to six months be backed up by study conclusions and official guidelines not by personal gut feelings and choices.

 

[kumber]

I wouldn't say there's bickering? Honestly, this whole thread reads to me as mums who believe weaning at 6 months is best for numerous medical reasons and mums who wean pre-6 months are taking offence.

I'm sure there are links for both sides of the argument if one looked hard enough.

I also don't see anyone being judgemental. As I said in my previous post, I don't understand or agree with weaning before 6 months because I wouldn't take the risk of my child's digestive system not being ready. But that is my opinion on how I want to wean my child. Others may feel that the risk is negligible based on their own child's behaviour.

Personally I think when one gets defensive over a decision, one knows that perhaps that decision is the wrong one for whatever reason. For example, I got defensive over ffing ds1 because I felt it was the wrong decision even though it was the best decision at the time. Others may disagree but that's ok, we don't all have to agree all the time!

 

[tinselcat]

Here's a link to the study I was referencing, where they are now concerned that the way to prevent food allergies is to introduce food early: http://www.eatstudy.co.uk/background/

It's being conducted by Kings College Hospital London, in conjunction with Guys & St Thomas's, so some of the top hospitals in the country.

JD.Deedee - I presume you're referring to me? I already posted a link to the information available (above), the study is ongoing but as you will see from reading this particular page there is interesting stuff there.

Also the point I was trying to make elsewhere is that they would not be conducting a study if it was unethical and the babies involved were at risk of harm from eating solids earlier.

Age at introduction of solids in the UK

The UK government recommends that solids are not introduced before four months of age. However we know from the government’s own Infant Feeding Survey that 51% of infants were reported to have received solid foods before 4 months of age. This figure is consistent with the average age of introduction of solids in the Millennium Cohort Study (a study in the UK of 15,980 infants) which was 3.8 months.

One reason put forward for not introducing solids before six months is concern about an increased risk of gastrointestinal infections. However, the Millennium cohort has recently reported (Quigley, 2008) that the age of introduction of solids had no effect on risk of hospitalization for diarrhoea or lower respiratory tract infection.

Why is the Early Introduction Group introducing the intervention foods before 6 months?

We believe that the window of opportunity to prevent food allergies developing may be very early in life. Emerging information from the LEAP study reveals that infants are sensitized to foods that can cause allergies far earlier than previously realized. 10% of infants under 6 months of age who were otherwise eligible to participate in the LEAP study, had to be rejected as they were already too significantly sensitized to peanut.

Despite none of the infants ever having eaten peanut before joining the LEAP study, 40% of the 4 month olds already have antibodies against peanut present in their blood.

Lastly, the guidance is presumably supplied to ensure that all babies are past the threshold for ability to handle solid food.

My little boy was induced early and suffered terrible colic for the first 14 weeks of his life. Apparently colic is caused by an under-developed gut hence problems digesting. This manifested itself physically as hours of screaming in pain every day by the baby. Two points from my personal opinion:

1 - I would have thought that this is exactly the type of baby at risk for earlier introduction of foods as he was very behind in digestive system development from the start, i.e. the ones which the "wait til 6 months" is intended to cover. Not the babies who have been healthy and without issue from the start around feeding.

2 - It was very evident during the colic that the baby was having trouble digesting the food. If you try weaning before 6 months and your baby starts having unexpected bouts of screaming, sickness, problems with poo or otherwise unwell then it may be worth reconsidering doing it. If however baby appears fine and is his/her normal (hopefully) happy self, then it seems sensible enough to leave it to your individual judgement as to whether to continue.

 

[Belfa]

Y'all care to post links to actual research that backs up your personal preference ? If we're going to be making informed choices...

Like the person who has a family member or something that's a doctor, you mind sharing the conclusion paper from the research they recently have done with weaning from 4 months. And those adamant about the chance in the bowel between 4-6 m post about that...

I'll have a read, I don't care how long it is.. I've got time for that.. For now.

And indeed stop bickering, let's have the circumstances that it's okay to wean prior to six months be backed up by study conclusions and official guidelines not by personal gut feelings and choices.

Hi

I found a really good article written by health professionals which actually focusses on something that I find very interesting and that is criticism of the world health organisation. I remember being told during a FF v BF debate that the issue with the WHO is that it has to cover the whole world therefore it's policies, which ultimately affect the advice we then receive, need to account for children worldwide which have much different socio-ecocmic needs. How can you compare a childs needs in Ethiopia v's the UK? Incidentally I do have an Ethiopian niece so do feel somewhat knowledgeable on the differences of these two countries.

Anyway, the first paragraph for this paper describes what I mean much more eloquently:

The WHO 2001 global recommendation is a one size fits all approach to weaning, an approach which may not take sufficient account of the special needs of some infants and fails to allow for the different problems encountered in the industrialised nations compared with economically developing countries. For the healthy normal birth weight full term infant born in an industrialised country, current research supports the benefit of exclusive breast milk feeding until 4–6 months. Evidence of harm through introducing solid food to these infants earlier than this is weak. Infants should be managed individually according to their needs.

Here is a link to the paper: http://adc.bmj.com/content/88/6/488.full

Interestingly it states that the research which was conducted and led to the policy on waiting until 6months to wean came from studies done by the WHO in Honduras, not London, not Glasgow, but a country which is far less developed that the one we live in and where children will develop much differently.

I'd like to add that by copying this link I'm not rubbishing the NHS guidelines nor anyone's opinions on when to wean but I do think that criticism of the WHO and where we choose to create our policies from are worth consideration for all medical advice we receive.

Babyslog you're right, it's the same for everything and not everyone will agree but that's okay as at some point someone will come across this thread in a couple of years and will be able to read the debate for themselves and come up with their own conclusion.

As the OP, I started this thread because I wanted to know in what situations people weaned pre-6 months as I had personally been "against" this and had been to every seminar I could on the topic! However, as time went on and I could see my baby's development coming on each day I was becoming interested in the reasons why some weaned before 6months. I know the information on why to wait, I didn't know why you would do it early and that's the question I asked though I'm happy for people to explain the reasons to wait again for others.

I don't think this thread has been that heated and on most part has been a healthy debate. I also don't think that those who weaned pre-6 month are being over the top. Whenever there's a FF thread the FF mums always seem to be tarred with that brush too and I personally always read it that those who follow guidelines come across too strongly in a "you can't do that, you're breaking the rules" way. But that's okay because we all read information differently and take away different things so as long as it has helped people make an informed choice then that's fine.

My personal opinion has now changed and I now feel that if you're baby is passing the milestones required and showing a strong interest in food then try offering pureed veg and if they swallow it then their body is responding to it's natural reflexes which would indicate they are capable of handling the puree in their digestive system. Anyone who does baby swimming lessons will know that natural reflexes are encouraged and wholly trusted to teach babies how to be safe in the water and these are principles I am adopting with his weaning process and will probably try to do so when toilet training also! x

 

[tinselcat]

Leap Study results: http://www.leapstudy.co.uk/leap-study-results (peanut allergies .. study based on infants aged 4-11 months when starting to introduce peanut products)


http://adc.bmj.com/content/94/2/148.abstract

Infant feeding, solid foods and hospitalisation in the first 8 months after birth
M A Quigley1, Y J Kelly2, A Sacker3

Abstract
Most infants in the UK start solids before the recommended age of 6 months. We assessed the independent effects of solids and breast feeding on the risk of hospitalisation for infection in term, singleton infants in the Millennium Cohort Study (n = 15 980). For both diarrhoea and lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), the monthly risk of hospitalisation was significantly lower in those receiving breast milk compared with those receiving formula. The monthly risk of hospitalisation was not significantly higher in those who had received solids compared with those not on solids (for diarrhoea, adjusted odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.59; for LRTI, adjusted odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70), and the risk did not vary significantly according to the age of starting solids.

 

[Baby2sky]

Thanks belfa and tinselcat for posting those papers! Really interesting reading.

 

[littlemonkey]

Y'all care to post links to actual research that backs up your personal preference ? If we're going to be making informed choices...

Like the person who has a family member or something that's a doctor, you mind sharing the conclusion paper from the research they recently have done with weaning from 4 months. And those adamant about the chance in the bowel between 4-6 m post about that...

I'll have a read, I don't care how long it is.. I've got time for that.. For now.

And indeed stop bickering, let's have the circumstances that it's okay to wean prior to six months be backed up by study conclusions and official guidelines not by personal gut feelings and choices.

If you look on the world health organisations website and search on there for their guidance on feeding and weaning. There's plenty to read there.

I did my research purely on view points which went against weaning early. I personally wanted to know and understand why it was recommended not to wean early so I could then decide if I agreed or not.

Personally, I did not believe the who offered any reason to dely weaning other than to extend bf in their guidance. As my two babies are FF, there wasn't much point in waiting.

As for articles regarding the gut, sorry but you'll have to Google that yourself like I did cos I can't be bothered tonight. But most articles mentioned it is the introduction of anything else other than Breastmilk which reduces the bacteria in the gut and increases the risk of allergies etc. So formula can cause the same issue. Again, I have FF my children, so had already potentially exposed them to this issue. In my mind there was nothing to gain from waiting. Especially when my babies weren't drinking milk and dropping centiles.

I'd wean my kids at four months again given the chance again. The only thing I might think differently about is my choice of FF as the more I read, the more I believe it is behind my son's issues with reflux etc

 

[Coletteypie]

I think comments such as (and I paraphrase), 'you're being defensive because you know you are in the wrong' are very unhelpful. This is a forum to help Mums out - not berate them for their decision making. There seems to be a theme from the anti-weaning police that there is a 'right' decision e.g. their opinion and a wrong (aligned with the devil) school of thought that opposes their decision.

And I would appreciate if you wouldn't end every post with something along the lines of 'it's your decision but I cannot in any circumstance understand why ANYONE would chose to endanger their child with a CRAZY notion of weaning pre-6 months when it could mean they will have digestive problems, obesity, diabetes, go blind, be hairy, grow an extra ear....' You get my drift.....and again I may have paraphrased. But the dramatic nature of some of these proclaimations is too hard to ignore.

You have your opinion, sure. So do I. I am not critisising you for waiting to wean your child (whether that is 6 months or later). Why can you not show the opposing view the same respect? Would you be defensive if I implied you were a bad mum for waiting till 6 months? I have simply tried to explain my decision on here to Belfa.

I noticed another weaning thread started and honestly I shook my head and said 'oh god not another'. Lizziimayy left a weaning chat on FB after reading the judgmental comments posted by some. I hope she doesn't read this thread because if I didn't have the conviction in my informed decision (as agreed with my health visitor) then I would seriously think I am a bad mum for even contemplating early weaning. And again by weaning I mean first tastes. I won't be offering my baby a filet steak, ooooft for at least another week. By then her fork and knife skills should be exemplary.

And since when did we need academic research to reference our arguments? Has all become a bit mad.

 

[Toni.C]

I hope she doesn't read this thread because if I didn't have the conviction in my informed decision (as agreed with my health visitor) then I would seriously think I am a bad mum for even contemplating early weaning. And again by weaning I mean first tastes. I won't be offering my baby a filet steak, ooooft for at least another week. By then her fork and knife skills should be exemplary.

And since when did we need academic research to reference our arguments? Has all become a bit mad.

I feel awful having read some of these comments!

I clearly didn't google enough about all the guidelines I should be following before I got pregnant. *sigh*

 

[Coletteypie]

Awww you really shouldn't feel that way Toni. If your baby was having trouble digesting the puréed veg then you would have had a very unhappy baby and gross baby poo with lots of undigested food. Have a feeling that without any research you would have known something was wrong.

 

[Lilmisshopeful]

How did people know how to raise babies before the Internet I don't know what I do know is that blackcurrant jelly gives oliver purple poo xxx

 

[babyscotcher]

I thought of this thread today when feeding my 24 week baby his afternoon 'meal.' He had a bottle at about 5pm which is when he usually has his puree so I was going to give the food a miss for one day knowing that he doesn't need it for nutritional purposes. However my little boy was ratty and kept looking at his highchair so I thought I would see if he wanted it. He wolfed down half a large pouch of apples & bananas (yes, kill me I currently use Ella's kitchen pouches) and even tried feeding himself by grabbing the spoon. He was a much happier baby afterwards so it was obviously what he was being grizzly for.

Makes me secure in feeling that I did the right thing for my baby at weaning him a few weeks ago as he is already really enjoying his food. X.

 

[Baby2sky]

Surely if you've done your research and are truly happy and content that you've made the right decision then a few opposing opinions shouldn't upset you.

Since becoming a mother I think that broadly speaking there are two types of parents; those who follow the guidelines and those who adapt them. Neither is "right" or "wrong", but isn't it always useful to see both sides of the coin? Im definitely the type of parent who will always follow the current nhs guidelines, but I am happy this thread came up and has developed in a mostly positive tone as I had never seen the research posted by tinselcat and belfa, and I appreciate reading a different school of thought.

 

[kumber]

Here here Baby2sky

 

[Orion]

The thing that's frustrated me about this thread is that I sought advice from my HV and GP who are surely trained to give better advice than an nhs website or my understanding of 'research'. Neither said weaning closer to 5 months than 6 was dangerous to him or his insides as he was showing all the physical signs of being ready for weaning.

I'm not one to bend rules silly nilly, but if my GP and HV say it's ok having spoken to me personally and seen my baby for themselves, then it can't be as dangerous or as strict an age rule than some on here are making out.

The general idea is that if they're showing all the physical signs, then nature wouldn't let them develop in a way where they could be interested in, reach for, put in their mouth, and swallow food without having the internal development neccessary to deal with digesting it.

You can have your own opinion, that's fine. But I'm happy with my opinion based on my support team of health professionals. And my own understanding of the written information I've been given by them.

 

[kumber]

My personal bugbear with going on a GP's advice is that they aren't child specialists. They do minimal training in children and their advice, in my experience, massively contradicts the hv. And then hvs always say different things across different trusts, it's difficult to know.

I think discussing it with your health visitor is sensible anyhow, she will know your child and is trained to observe and conclude on their level of development more so than most parents. What I find worrying is that some parents have the attitude of "well it never did me any harm" (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I hear it at baby groups too!). As I said previously, medicine has moved on since we were little and I feel that it's important to take current research as priority. Yes, it may change in a couple of years but the current research is done with the most up to date experience, equipment and knowledge so it can only be an improvement on previous recommendations because we didn't have as much knowledge then iykwim?

Ultimately we're all going to do what we choose with our child and I don't think anyone has pointed fingers at another and said "well you're wrong" or "you're a bad parent for weaning at x age", it's been quite a healthy debate. I don't understand weaning at 4 months but perhaps some of you don't understand why I prefer to wait until 6 months if all the signs are there. We all do the best we can as mothers, we all have such different experiences that we've shared but now I feel that we're rehashing the same arguments when neither side will step back. It's a passionate issue for all of us but Belfa has come to her own conclusions based on everyone's posts so perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[JD.Deedee]

Since when do we need academic research to reference our arguments.


Well take these three for example..

1. I read academic research that supports the hypothesis of bowl maturing and therefore made the decision to wait until 6 months.

2. I read the academic research that supports the theory of introducing solids at a younger age to avoid allergies and with LO already being FF, I made the decision to wean early, thus before 6 months.

3. I weaned early because my mother and everyone else I know did so and we all turned out fine.

The first two choices have been made by informed decisions whereas the third is made by assumption, the first two can also be influenced by speaking to a health professional whom presumably has been updated via academic reference.


That doesn't mean that the individual has to read entire studies, studies are often summarised and broken down into new bits of guidelines. It never does any harm to ask more questions to make the decision that is right for you.
Taking other factors into consideration.

Nutrition is very hard to study as it's such a broad subject and it can differ so much per individual what their needs are and how they react to food (over a longer period of time..) When I started my course to build a foundation in nutritional health, one of the first things that is discussed is cancer and nutrition it wasn't long until I stumbled upon this

"There are almost no double-blinded, large scale, studies done on people because they are expensive, very hard to do and there is no financial incentive."

Which explains why the studies mentioned prior in this thread that have been carried out in countries such as Honduras and Ethiopia which may feel irrelevant to us due to different diet by the mother during and post pregnancy and genetic factors that may play a role too.

I'm going to look a bit deeper into that information I have by hand now at the moment, thanks for everyone for contributing to these references.




The conclusion from what I've read so far is that breast is best until atleast six months. In reality this isn't always achievable.

As what is always is with nutrition, some of the studies have been conducted at times where more people weaned around 3-4 months and more people generally bottle fed whereas another can be with an uptake in breastfeeding, where now people are more likely to wait.
Which again makes it such a hard subject to study upon.

 

[Karenb]

I think comments such as (and I paraphrase), 'you're being defensive because you know you are in the wrong' are very unhelpful. This is a forum to help Mums out - not berate them for their decision making. There seems to be a theme from the anti-weaning police that there is a 'right' decision e.g. their opinion and a wrong (aligned with the devil) school of thought that opposes their decision.

And I would appreciate if you wouldn't end every post with something along the lines of 'it's your decision but I cannot in any circumstance understand why ANYONE would chose to endanger their child with a CRAZY notion of weaning pre-6 months when it could mean they will have digestive problems, obesity, diabetes, go blind, be hairy, grow an extra ear....' You get my drift.....and again I may have paraphrased. But the dramatic nature of some of these proclaimations is too hard to ignore.

You have your opinion, sure. So do I. I am not critisising you for waiting to wean your child (whether that is 6 months or later). Why can you not show the opposing view the same respect? Would you be defensive if I implied you were a bad mum for waiting till 6 months? I have simply tried to explain my decision on here to Belfa.

I noticed another weaning thread started and honestly I shook my head and said 'oh god not another'. Lizziimayy left a weaning chat on FB after reading the judgmental comments posted by some. I hope she doesn't read this thread because if I didn't have the conviction in my informed decision (as agreed with my health visitor) then I would seriously think I am a bad mum for even contemplating early weaning. And again by weaning I mean first tastes. I won't be offering my baby a filet steak, ooooft for at least another week. By then her fork and knife skills should be exemplary.

And since when did we need academic research to reference our arguments? Has all become a bit mad.

I agree with all of the above!! It's a shame some people struggle with opinions that differ to their own xx

 

[Orion]

My personal bugbear with going on a GP's advice is that they aren't child specialists. They do minimal training in children and their advice, in my experience, massively contradicts the hv. And then hvs always say different things across different trusts, it's difficult to know.

I think discussing it with your health visitor is sensible anyhow, she will know your child and is trained to observe and conclude on their level of development more so than most parents. What I find worrying is that some parents have the attitude of "well it never did me any harm" (I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, I hear it at baby groups too!). As I said previously, medicine has moved on since we were little and I feel that it's important to take current research as priority. Yes, it may change in a couple of years but the current research is done with the most up to date experience, equipment and knowledge so it can only be an improvement on previous recommendations because we didn't have as much knowledge then iykwim?

Ultimately we're all going to do what we choose with our child and I don't think anyone has pointed fingers at another and said "well you're wrong" or "you're a bad parent for weaning at x age", it's been quite a healthy debate. I don't understand weaning at 4 months but perhaps some of you don't understand why I prefer to wait until 6 months if all the signs are there. We all do the best we can as mothers, we all have such different experiences that we've shared but now I feel that we're rehashing the same arguments when neither side will step back. It's a passionate issue for all of us but Belfa has come to her own conclusions based on everyone's posts so perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree and move on.

You weren't to know, but my regular GP actually specialised in women and child health. One other GP at the practice that I saw when my little one had a cough has also specialised in child medicine.

 

[kumber]

That's extremely handy Orion, you're so lucky! I've been at 3 different practices and all of them were poor at best so I'm very envious!