hf1

Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

My avatar
nappynutter
Cloth Nappy Fanatic
Cloth Nappy Fanatic

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby nappynutter » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:42 am

becsom wrote:
ebonina wrote:Aren't there studies going on questioning whether delayed weaning is the cause of allergies and that weaning at 3 months would be better?


This really pricked up my ears (eyes?) as I hadn't heard this before. Had a quick scan on Pubmed and found this 2009 review article which suggests it might be better to wean at 4-6m.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19685855

How bizarre!!!! It could be that the increase in childhood allergies seen in recent years could be in part attributable to delayed weaning :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

And I agree, weaning is much harder work, and messy! With DD1 I was keen to see how she got on with food even though I didn't think she was ready at 6m as she was prem. With DD2 I just kept putting it off until I got told off by the HV :roll:


This article has been ripped to shreds by endless different experts. Babies were weaned at 9-12 months for thousands of years until the 1920's when formula milk became more available but was so awful babies died unless given solids at 3 months. The recent increase in allergies is related to formula, early weaning and environmental toxins not later weaning.

My avatar
beck
Cloth Nappy Ninky Nonk
Cloth Nappy Ninky Nonk

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby beck » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:48 am

I'm always really interested in the weaning debate.

And come to think of it Bec that statement does ring true for my LO's.

Hannah was only BF for 10wks then FF and weaned at 16 weeks (was the recommendation then) and went to cows milk at 11.5mths and she has no allergies, no intolerances and was a dream baby.
Phebie was BF til 12.5mths and weaned at 8 mths (she flat out refused food before then) and had a terrible milk intolerance.
William was BF til 14.5mths and weaned at 6mths and has a milk intolerance as well as others and has eczema! All of which did not show itself until he stopped BFing.
Could just be coincidence but it does show a pattern :?

My avatar
nappynutter
Cloth Nappy Fanatic
Cloth Nappy Fanatic

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby nappynutter » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:52 am

beck wrote:William was BF til 14.5mths and weaned at 6mths and has a milk intolerance as well as others and has eczema! All of which did not show itself until he stopped BFing.


Surely this suggests that bf protected him from food intolerances and allergies?

My avatar
Amanda
Cloth Nappy Worshipper
Cloth Nappy Worshipper

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby Amanda » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:02 am

I guess in days gone by mums relied on their intuition alot more. Those babies who were taking food from a parent's plate at 4 months would've been allowed to do it rather than be denied it. And those who weren't remotely interested in food until much later wouldn't have had food forced upon them at the magical 6 months, 4 months, whatever. Finn didn't properly show an interest in food until 8 months, wasn't interested in being fed and not particularly good at feeding himself so we had a horrible few weeks of him waking every 1.5hrs for bf but it sorted itself out. He just wasn't particularly interested in eating in any form really, and self-weaned at 11 months too. Thankfully by then he was eating food quite well.

Going back to my point though, I don't think mums think for themselves as much nowadays. We are told by the government when to wean our babies, and if we do it any way differently we are frowned upon/criticised. I don't mean I agree with early weaning especially, or support the idea of adding rice to bottles etc, it's just a general comment (moan :lol:) about being told when we have to do it.

As for whether ff would make someone wean later, I don't think so. Friends who ff seem slightly obsessed about their babies being 'hungry', switch them onto hungry baby formula at a couple of months and then wean early. Those who bf just accept that bm will give the baby all they need.

My avatar
Annette
Cloth Nappy Ninky Nonk
Cloth Nappy Ninky Nonk

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby Annette » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:10 am

Amanda wrote:As for whether ff would make someone wean later, I don't think so. Friends who ff seem slightly obsessed about their babies being 'hungry', switch them onto hungry baby formula at a couple of months and then wean early. Those who bf just accept that bm will give the baby all they need.


I do think that this has alot to do with the fact that it is very visible iygwim. With bottle feeding then you know exactly how much they are drinking and compare it to others and worry when it changes. I know when I had Charlotte, I was very fortunate that I had no preconceptions and just fed her as and when she wanted to and had absolutely no idea how much she was getting but she was pretty easy and I didn't need to worry - with Ben I started expressing early on in order to get meds into him and I did find sometimes I was obsessing about how many Ozs and he also wanted to be attached to me all the time so it was a very different experience.

You are right though - we no longer have the ability to trust our instincts whether that be because of government guidelines or peer pressure or just well meaning people giving us "advice". Both of mine started on solids before 6 months and I like to think I did what I thought was best at the time, and actually if I did it again, I would probably do the same.

My avatar
ebonina
Cloth Nappy Addict
Cloth Nappy Addict

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby ebonina » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:10 am

Here is some thoughts on when to introduce gluten (4-6m) as cases of celiac disease rose in Sweden when EBF for 6m was introduced. http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/raisi ... eeding.htm
This interested me as my mum really couldn't understand the advice not to give babies bread before 6 months. Pobs was one of the first things she gave us.

My avatar
charlibunny
Cloth Nappy Disciple
Cloth Nappy Disciple

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby charlibunny » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:30 am

Maybe she should give the baby some quavers???




:coatdoor: :coatdoor: :surrender: Sorry couldn't resist that one...

My avatar
coastal
Cloth Nappy Nutter
Cloth Nappy Nutter

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby coastal » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:02 pm

northernruth wrote:I'm not trying to start another weaning thread debate :giggle: but just wondered what you all thought, should she have just FF from the start and so avoid having to wean so early?

FF, later weaning vs BF early weaning.... I think it depends on the child. I think every child benefits from being BF, even for a short while...and I think only some children will be damaged by early weaning (if it's just baby rice and veg/fruit that is given). So I think, on balance, she made the right decision to BF.
Elsewhere, someone who lives in Sweden said recently that it's routine for a gruel like stuff to be used from 4 months in Sweden, so even if she had FF, the chances are she would have wanted to start weaning at 4 months anyway.
Amanda wrote:I guess in days gone by mums relied on their intuition alot more. Those babies who were taking food from a parent's plate at 4 months would've been allowed to do it rather than be denied it. And those who weren't remotely interested in food until much later wouldn't have had food forced upon them at the magical 6 months, 4 months, whatever.

^THIS!!
I think babies are all ready at different ages. A close friend has 4 children. Two were prem and weren't remotely interested in food till well past 6 months. The other two were very overdue HUGE babies, who were demanding food from just over 4 months. She fought her instinct, but eventually gave in (but stuck to a little baby rice only until they were older).
I understand that the recommendations were brought in because some mothers WEREN'T going by their intuition and were starting solids because their mothers/aunties/wee Jeanie next door were telling them that they should be, rather than waiting for their baby to let them know, but it does annoy me that the needs of individual babies are not being catered for.
It doesn't make sense to me that my month early, tiny Alasdair and my friend's 3 week overdue hulk of a Hector, both suddenly are ready for solids, exactly 6 months after they are born.

My avatar
beck
Cloth Nappy Ninky Nonk
Cloth Nappy Ninky Nonk

Re: Which is better? (more weaning controversy!)

Postby beck » Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:23 pm

nappynutter wrote:
beck wrote:William was BF til 14.5mths and weaned at 6mths and has a milk intolerance as well as others and has eczema! All of which did not show itself until he stopped BFing.


Surely this suggests that bf protected him from food intolerances and allergies?


Yes thats what I believe too, but there is always that niggle what if he was FF from the start would he have as many problems as he does. Was it because the introduction to the things he reacts to was left so late?

PreviousNext

Return to Baby and Toddler