Hellobee Boards

we went with 4 months because our doctor recommended it and have been happy each time. means we can be very low key and start extremely slowly.

I think if you’re excited to start and your doctor’s okay with it, there’s no need to wait. I know a lot of people that started at 4 months without issue, especially if their babies are interested in food. We waited until a little later with ours, but that’s because we did baby led weaning so they needed to be able to feed themselves. Plus, none of ours were all that interested in food until later. We might have done it differently if that hadn’t been the case.

It's definitely more about readiness than age once they hit 4 months. As long as LO is interested in foods (eg watching you eat, trying to put your food in her mouth), has lost her reflexive tongue thrust, and has good head control, you can try. We started at 5.5 months with DD. She had great head control but honestly wasn't that interesting in our food. I just got excited and figured it would be fine since she was almost 6 months. Well, it's taken her until 8 months to finally be more interested in trying to actually eat rather than just playing. I don't think it hurt her to start when we did, but if I had waited it probably would have saved me some frustration.

I tried starting at 4 months with all three, mostly because there is some evidence that it decreases the incidence of food allergies, and my pediatrician recommended it for that reason. Two of my three did not take to food until well after 6 months, though. I just kept offering, but didn't push it. One was never into being fed, and got into food once he could self feed. One I think has some oral motor issues, at 15 months he can't use a straw and isn't talking much. The one who took to food right away is my best eater, but I think he has just always been into food.

We tried with our twins at 5mos, and they just weren't ready. I would wait til baby is showing interest, watching you eat, trying to grab your food, etc. Otherwise they will just be confused.

I definitely would not base the decision on older sibling's excitement. I get the appeal but let #2 progress at his/her own pace.

I wouldn't. Four months is so young. Your child has literally the rest of their life to eat solids, it's only two months to wait. Studies have shown baby systems often aren't ready for solids before six months so why rush it?

It depends on signs of readiness more than age! We started my first at six months, and in retrospect, I regret waiting. I think he was ready earlier than that. With my second, we started at five months and that worked really well for us. It's also what our doctor recommended for her when he saw us at four months. The whole "open gut" thing is a myth, and it's actually suggested that you introduce allergenic foods *by* six months, so starting before is fine! I don't think either of mine would have been ready right at four months, but it really depends on the child. This is a good evidence-based look at some of the myths that are out there: https://scienceofmom.com/2016/05/03/whats-up-with-the-virgin-gut-do-babies-really-have-an-open-gut-until-6-months-of-age/