Jump to content

Recommended Posts

hallo. I started weaning my girl 4.5 weeks ago. She has been quite fussy and eating tiny amounts, but at least eating. But yesterday she refused all solids - I tried giving her different things throughout the day but she just kept her mouth shut and didn't take anything (just formula). Today is the same - I have just lost another battle... Has it happened to anyone else? Maybe I should just not give her milk and wait till she is REALLY hungry, but it breask my heard when she cries for milk...


This is my second baby and although I generally have a relaxed attitude to bringing up my kids this is already stressing me out :(


thanks in advance.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/16562-help-baby-refuses-solids/
Share on other sites

How old is she?


It maybe that she's just not interested, they do say 'food for fun until they're one!' meaning they don't get a great deal from solid food until they're a year, it's just about having fun and experimenting, they get most of what they need from their milk, I personally wouldn't be worried at all but then I am so laid back about these things I'm practically horizontal!


Have you tried babyled weaning or finger foods?

Totally agree Vik. Don't even worry about the solids. Definitely don't withold the milk. It's more important your LO have milk than solids. What type of weaning are you doing? I have a copy of Baby Led Weaning floating around the Forum somewhere. I'd be happy to loan it to you. Your LO might just be expressing her independence via the medium of food. Try leaving out solids for a week. Then reintroduce them as finger foods only. Or let her spoon feed herself. Giving her control over the food may make it more interesting and fun for her. xx

My son was a breeze to wean, daughter a nightmare. She was about 8.5 months old before she started eating "properly" (in that she'd actually accept a little bowl of fruit/cereal for breakfast), but for 2 months before it was a stressful nightmare trying to get her to take anything.


In the end I pretty much gave up with "baby" foods and just gave her bits of whatever myself or her brother were eating - if she was hungry she would give it a try, if not at least it meant I hadn't wasted time preparing something especially for her.


Looking back I wish I hadn't worried about it so much. She obviously wasn't ready, was getting plenty of milk which is the main thing at that age, and now at nearly 3 is a brilliant little eater.


I would keep offering little bits, but don't worry if she's not interested, she'll get there eventually.


P x

thanks everyone, reassuring and useful posts. She is 6.5 months and a tiny tiny little thing (2nd centile), so maybe just not interested in food yet.


Saffron, thankd for the offer of the book but i will stick to annabel carmel for now.


Very useful post Picke as it looks like it is the same here: my son was just obsessed with his food and ate LOADS and NON STOP. It looks like it might be another two months before the pink princess starts eating properly. I will stop worrying now :)


THANKS AGAIN!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...