Advice needed - baby car seat questions (merged)

daphne_descends

My DS started sucking his fist at 10 weeks and my health visitor talked about weaning at 15 weeks. I ignored her.

In 1939 guidelines were:
- nothing but milk for 9 months
- then introduce 'crusts'
- at 10 months baby can have egg yolk
- at 11 months meat, potatoes etc

And the advice was to go out in all weathers except fog and east winds

Doesn't that sound lovely.

I am just starting weaning now and DS is fascinated with watching, and playing with food, but not doing much eating. So my query over this 'hunger' thing is just that it obviously takes a while to get them eating much of anything, so I can't see how a few tablespoons of rice or veg can replace the calories in milk as far as 'satisfaction' goes.

I wonder why the guidelines became 4 months at all as they have gone the other way - perhaps they will change to become even later? Did it have something to do with the introduction of infant formula, and the popularity of routines (a la Truby King), maternity leave, an increase in working mothers and a desire to have babies weaned off the breast before returning to work?

I am interested and curious about it all rather than feeling righteous or like I know best, I don't think that at all!

natalie1974

fac73 wrote: »

But it does irritate me when people claim they 'couldn't wait' - sorry - but hungry babies need more milk.

But just how much milk can you give them , my DD2 was having over 140 ozs of milk a day , her bedtime bottle was , sorry 3 bottles = 27 ozs and was gaining 1-2lbs a week , she weighed over 21lbs @ 13 weeks old and was just a blob , not a baby . No clothes fitted her whatsoever , she lived in babygro's for the 1st year of her life , she did look cute though ! I held off for as long as I possibly could and started weaning her @ 17 weeks on pureed veg , not surprisingly her milk intake more than halved when she started to have 4 spoons of veg at lunchtime and 4 spoons at teatime . She then was only having 18 ozs for her bedtime bottle and approx another 45 ozs during the rest of the day .

CFC

If we all followed the DoH's advice about food, we'd all have swapped from butter to margarine then back to butter again, then eaten no fat at all, then swapped to a high olive oil diet, then told to eat all veg raw, then instructed we must peel carrots, now we're all told about 'eat 5 a day', next month it will be that fruit and veg can kill!

We'd also have been disciplining children when naughty, but shortly we'll probably be put into prison for giving them a smack until society finally breaks down under the weight of desocialisation, and then we'll be put into prison for NOT giving them a smack.

All a parent can do is make the decision that they believe to be right for their own children and accept that other parents will not always believe the same things.

Being a parent is hard enough without some self righteous posters believing that Government guidelines are infallible and should be obeyed in every instance or you are A Bad Parent (the same government who is incompetent enough to lose millons of records of personal data, who have allowed the banks to nearly go bust, and got us into Iraq for 5 years, who couldn't find their rear end with a map, both hands, a Sat Nav and a magnifying glass!)

consultant31

CFC wrote: »

Being a parent is hard enough without some self righteous posters believing that Government guidelines are infallible and should be obeyed in every instance or you are A Bad Parent (the same government who is incompetent enough to lose millons of records of personal data, who have allowed the banks to nearly go bust, and got us into Iraq for 5 years, who couldn't find their rear end with a map, both hands, a Sat Nav and a magnifying glass!)

That'll be a 'no' vote for Labour at the next elections then :rotfl:

I was not being self-righteous at all, merely pointing out what was being said with no opinion of my own to muddy the waters.

I'm sure most parents do know what's best for their baby, but there are also lots of them who haven't a clue and need the guidelines to help them.

Introducing inappropriate foods to a baby when he/she is very young can do lasting damage and I think most of the posters who've pointed this out have done it because they are concerned, not to be 'holier than thou'.

The baby in question does look very happy and healthy - long may he remain so!

Carmina_Piranha_3

spendless my baby was born in 2005 and the health visitors here hadn't changed their minds about the earlier weaning - in fact i was nagged to get a move on because if i waited until 6 months he'd have delayed speech due to not using his mouth muscles properly! i had read all of the current guidelines about waiting until 6 months but the health visitors were having none of it.

at 7 months they told me to hurry up with lumpy food and i replied that he'd only just tried his first taste of puree 3 weeks earlier - they were horrified! he waited until 26 weeks old but that was his doing, not mine. babies decide for themselves when they want to be weaned.

he was a large, fast growing baby but he didn't need food and the average amount of milk was enough for his needs. my sister's baby was a tiny skinny little boy yet he was always starving and was desperate to be weaned early.

anyway, i think the OP was winding some of you up and his baby doesn't actually eat chocolate or sausages every day.

Cissi

fac73 wrote: »

But it does irritate me when people claim they 'couldn't wait' - sorry - but hungry babies need more milk.

And it does irritate me when people say "we had no choice, our 16-lbs baby had outgrown the rearward-facing car seat." No baby that hasn't reached at least 22 lbs or 9 months is ready to be in a forward-facing car seat, no matter whether their legs seem "squashed" or not! For starters, it's actually illegal within the European Union to turn a baby forwards any earlier, and the rules are there for a reason! And the guidelines are clear: it's safest to keep babies facing rearward as long as possible, ideally way beyond the legal minimum.

As pointed out by a previous poster, in Scandinavia (which has long been at the forefront of car safety), the recommendation is to leave children rearward-facing until 4 years of age (this is followed by a majority, hence the much lower incidence there of serious consequences of car crashes for young children). Granted, with the car seats available in this country this isn't practically feasible, but most infant car seats can be used until the child reaches 13 kg/29 lbs, and this is by far the safest solution, no question. The child hasn't outgrown the seat until its head is protruding above the top, period. Any arguments about "he/she was unhappy/couldn't see out" etc are irrelevant to safety. Sure, if you value a quiet trip more than your child's safety, that's your choice (as long as the child is at least 22 lbs or 9 months old) - but you should know that you're possibly putting your child at risk. It doesn't even take a serious accident to cause damage - the head of a young child is so much heavier in relation to his body that his undeveloped neck muscles may not be able to cope even with very sudden braking.

For the record, our two boys were in the Maxi Cosi Cabrio until 13 and 12 months, respectively (the second one being much bigger than the first one). Sure, they were squashed (although neither seemed too bothered by it) - but we knew this kept them as safe as possible. I hated having to turn them forward, knowing that their bodies weren't really ready for this for several years yet - even though they were both much happier that they could now see out. I have myself been in a very serious car accident, and I know from experience how much depends on the right safety precautions when it matters!

As for the weaning issue, having read the chocolate "mouse" comments I've decided the whole thing has to be a windup. In my opinion, if a child won't eat pure fruit or vegetable puree they're not ready to be weaned, no matter how hungry they are - unless of course they're a whole lot older than 5 months.

miserly_mum

[QUOTE=Cissi;10318433

As for the weaning issue, having read the chocolate "mouse" comments I've decided the whole thing has to be a windup. In my opinion, if a child won't eat pure fruit or vegetable puree they're not ready to be weaned, no matter how hungry they are - unless of course they're a whole lot older than 5 months.[/QUOTE]

That is absolute rubbish. You obviously haven't had a very hungry baby. Yes the OP is winding you lot up because you wouldn't answer the original question (about the car seat). But if you think every child is the same in relation to weaning you are very much disillusioned.

How did mothers manage years ago before all the Government guidelines? (which constantly change).........Very,very well :rolleyes:

If it makes you all feel better to faff about over weaning times then fine......... but when normal people are getting a good nights sleep with contented.full up babies you can all sit there with your perfectly looked after off spring who would probably benefit from a good feed.(quite literally)

I've had 6 children, some breast fed some not. Some weaned early some not.(depending on circumstances at the time). Do you know the difference..............? Bugg*r all

daphne_descends

miserly_mum wrote: »

If it makes you all feel better to faff about over weaning times then fine......... but when normal people are getting a good nights sleep with contented.full up babies you can all sit there with your perfectly looked after off spring who would probably benefit from a good feed.(quite literally)

Well now I am angry, you are insinuating that my non-weaned child is not content and could 'benefit' from a good feed. How rude.

And what do you mean by 'normal' people?!

Welshlassie

miserly_mum wrote: »

If it makes you all feel better to faff about over weaning times then fine......... but when normal people are getting a good nights sleep with contented.full up babies you can all sit there with your perfectly looked after off spring who would probably benefit from a good feed.(quite literally)

You are talking b*ll*cks. I don't care if you've had 6 kids, my DS is 8 and half months old and is happily having 3 good meals a day in addition to snacks and BF when he wants it and he still doesn't sleep through all the time, we're lucky if he sleep through 2 nights a week, so that obviously make me abnormal and he in need of a good feed according to your "theory". He is one of the happiest, smilest babies I have ever seen and is certainly content so you have obviously been very lucky with your kids who have slept through, but not every baby is like that and to say it is because they haven't been fed enough is just plain stupid. (and for the record he was weaned at 4 months on advice from the HV after having more than 3 weeks of feeding him every 90-120 minutes including 3 hourly through the night)

Cissi

miserly_mum wrote: »

That is absolute rubbish. You obviously haven't had a very hungry baby. Yes the OP is winding you lot up because you wouldn't answer the original question (about the car seat). But if you think every child is the same in relation to weaning you are very much disillusioned.

I think you misread my post, on several levels. Firstly, it was actually my first post on this thread, and you may have missed that I started with a lengthy answer to the original car seat question (even if my answer may not be what the OP was looking for). Secondly, I in no way commented on how early babies should be weaned - I totally agree with you that this depends on the baby. And yes, I have had a very hungry baby, who kept us up all night at 5 months. We tried to wean him on baby rice and fruit purees, which he wouldn't take - he was clearly not ready for solids yet, just needed a lot of milk. And for the record, we weaned our eldest at 4 months, even though recommendations were already then to wait until 6 months, because we felt that he was ready for it, and he was. To minimise the risk of allergies we took it slowly, introducing one new food at a time, and he's done just fine.

What I did comment on were the repeated claims by the original poster that it's an ok solution to wean a baby on yoghurt and chocolate mousse (!) because he wouldn't eat more solid meals! I stand by my opinion that a baby should be weaned on appropriate weaning foods such as fruit, vegetables or baby cereal. If he won't take it, then he isn't ready, and it's best to leave it a few days and try again. If the baby reaches 6 months and still won't take solids then you may need to try a different method, but at 5 months a diet of milk is still fine, so there is no need to push it by giving wholly inappropriate foods.

Oh and I'm glad you get a full night's sleep with contented babies. I'm in no way suggesting that you didn't do what was best for your children at all times, and I'm pretty sure that you didn't wean them on chocolate mousse For the record, mine have also both been sleeping 12+ hour-nights since about 6 months old, and they're both great eaters. Love biscuits, of course, even the odd bit of chocolate (they're now 3 1/2 and 18 months), but they're just as keen on fruit.

I agree with those that have already pointed out that if the OP didn't want comments about weaning, then he woulnd't have included the reference to chocolate in his very first post, as a sign of how "mature" his baby is (though what on earth this has to do with his risk of serious injury in a car crash when facing forward is beyond me).