Early solids?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Early solids?
28
Sat, 01-15-2011 - 10:34am

A new study done in London shows that babies may not need to be fed only

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-29-2005
Sat, 01-15-2011 - 3:09pm
I waited till about six months with both kids. My second seemed more ready for solid and is on finger foods at around seven months. Course the floor gets fed a lot too.

 


Powered by
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-28-2003
Sat, 01-15-2011 - 3:34pm

*Feeding* solids? 6 months or later.

Giving baby a well-chewed (little) bite of what Mommy and Daddy are eating? Why not 4 months?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-07-2005
Sat, 01-15-2011 - 6:02pm
I also am still wondering about teeth, and in particular gums. My friend wonders if her daughter have chewed so long with her gums (reflux, started solids at 3 months) might have made her teeth harder to come in. I also did not want to have to extract any morsel that might have gotten stuck. I have to say I was always really careful that she did not choke on anything that was not easy to chew to mush. Mostly because I do not have baby CPR. However, I still do not understand this need to feed anything but formula or breastmilk for half a year. I was not looking for additional costs or anything...:P






Lilypie




iVillage Member
Registered: 12-30-2006
Sat, 01-15-2011 - 6:03pm

My first wasn't interested in solids until she was 9 months old. We tried her at 6 months, but she just kept spitting it all out at us. We got tired of being covered with mashed avocado and gave up until she asked for our food. Then we couldn't stop her- LOL!

#2 was very interested from about 5 months on, but we delayed until she was 6 months, based upon the current recommendations. We've not seen any sign of food allergies yet in either child. Hopefully we're good!

--Wendy
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Sat, 01-15-2011 - 10:52pm
I waited until 6 months with my DS and will likely do the same with any future children unless new studies come out that back up this study better. As of now this study is not solid enough to follow the advice. Even the study authors admit that the results being strictly observation, the study could be flawed and as such are not recommending that guidelines be change just yet. What they suggest is the issue should studied more closely to see if the guidelines should be changed or not.

It really bothers me how all sorts of media sights are either portraying this study as more conclusive then it is or suggesting that it recommends stopping BF'ing a 6 months and switching to formula. It does neither, as it is solely about how long to exclusively BF before introducing solids. Apparently many mothers are angry and the supposed changing guidelines but I think their anger should be directed towards the media which is misreporting this study as a recommendation for the guidelines to be change or in some cases making it seem as if the study claimed that waiting until 6 months to introduce solids harms all babies.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sun, 01-16-2011 - 4:10am

Here's UNICEF's response. I think it is important to note that 3 of the authors have declared links to the baby feeding industry.





Powered by CGISpy.com

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-11-2006
Sun, 01-16-2011 - 8:26am

That was worth reading, thanks, Iz.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2010
Sun, 01-16-2011 - 12:04pm

The actual study is available for free here.

There's an article about this in the Guardian here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2008
Sun, 01-16-2011 - 9:46pm

The news about this study seems to be making it's way all over the internet and gaining a lot of traction in many online news sources. Unfortunately, many are not properly describing the results of the study and/or are using very misleading headlines to title their articles on this study. While I think the study is flawed, it would if the news outlets could at least do a better job overall describing the results of the study accurately. Here are some of the most egregious headlines I found on articles about this study.

Breast may not be best for the first six months of life, some experts say

Translation: Breastfeeding only becomes best after 6 months. Before then something else (formula?) is best.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2010
Mon, 01-17-2011 - 1:32pm

DS started showing an interest in foods early, but I still waited until he was around 5, 5 1/2 months before introducing him to rice cereal mixed w/breastmilk, pureed green beans and pureed fruits. It didn't occur to me at the time that soft table foods would be OK (that's what he would drool over during dinnertime anyway, and try to reach for it), and to this day he has texture issues with food.

DD was 7 or 8 months, I can't remember now, before she tried any foods, and we never did the baby-food thing; we just gave her little pieces of whatever we were eating. So far she is more adventurous in what she will try, but she's still young and is starting a new phase called "I want that...no, I don't want it." (perhaps you've all heard of it; it's quite popular with the toddler crowd, lol)

Neither of my kids have any allergies to speak of, but DS (the older one) was the sicker of the two and we did have him tested for allergies and asthma when he was 2 because he got sick so often.

Kevali


 Photobucket

Pages