U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2011, 10:15 AM
 
15,299 posts, read 16,854,240 times
Reputation: 15020

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Skeffington View Post
When my cousin's child was born, it was in the 70's when natural childbirth and breastfeeding came into vogue. Back then, according to her, LLL recommended "no solids until age one". She was all gung ho about natural childbirth and breastfeeding - it was THE thing back then. Anything LLL recommended, was THE LAW.

I (despite my cousin's well meaning lectures) opted for an epidural both deliveries, formula fed, and started mine early on solids. Both my cousin's children (breastfed) had horrible allergies, were diagnosed with hyperactivity and ADD, and had constant ear infections resulting in the "tube" operation when they were two. Mine had neither allergies nor constant ear infections (once or twice that I can remember) and were hardly ever sick.
I was a member of LLL when my children were born in 1971 and 1974. No, the LLL did not recommend no solids until age one. It may be that the particular leader she was talking to did, but that was not a general recommendation.

Pediatricians back then did recommend solids early (as early as 6 weeks).

I had both my babies using LaMaze techniques, but my oldest was breech, so I did have a caudal for his birth. Even back then, LaMaze was NOT so totally crazy as to say that you should not have anesthesia *if* it was needed. Maybe I was lucky with the people who taught my classes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2011, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,004 posts, read 98,863,560 times
Reputation: 31436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Immunizing the mother was new to me too. According to my doctor, at the time (retired), immunizing the mother passes immunity to the baby so the baby doesn't have to start their shots until they're older (he was not a fan of starting immunizations for babies at birth). There were, apparently, indications at birth that my daughter was susceptable to allergies and averse reactions. They never said what the issue was only that they wanted to wait on starting her shots and felt the safest route was immunizing me. She did have the entire series of shots. She just started them later and got one at a time instead of multiples. They were very cautious about immunizing her. My guess is something the doctor had seen before that he suspected resulted in issues during the immunization process. He never gave a reason but you could see his concern right after she was born.

Co sleeping was recommended by many when my oldest was born including our pedicatrician as was side sleeping. Then it was back sleeping. I don't know what it is now. The point is, they keep changing their minds. I think they do this to give mothers gray hair. We co-slept with both of our girls. Never had an issue other than dd#2 snored.
Maybe you misinterpreted your doctor. As I said earlier, parents are advised to be up to date on their immunizations to protect their babies until such time as the babies can be fully immunized. Also, babies do get some immunity from their mothers; in fact, this is the reason some vaccines cannot be given until maternal antibodies have worn off (MMR and Chickenpox). This is called "passive immunity". If a pregnant woman gets an immunization, her infant will get the benefit of this passive immunity. However, in most cases, that immunity wears off early, regardless of breastfeeding status, immunization status of the mother, etc. The only immunization recommended at birth is Hepatitis B. All others must wait until the infant is at least six weeks. Generally in the US, other childhood immunizations are started at two months.

Regarding sleep position, the "Back to Sleep" program was initiated in 1994. The puirpose of this program is to prevent SIDS. Like a lot of new programs, many people, including health professionals, did not agree with it at first. However, the results seem to indicate that back sleeping does help reduce the incidence of SIDS.

NICHD Back to Sleep Campaign
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 10:49 AM
 
15,299 posts, read 16,854,240 times
Reputation: 15020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Regarding sleep position, the "Back to Sleep" program was initiated in 1994. The puirpose of this program is to prevent SIDS. Like a lot of new programs, many people, including health professionals, did not agree with it at first. However, the results seem to indicate that back sleeping does help reduce the incidence of SIDS.

NICHD Back to Sleep Campaign
My son would never have slept on his back (he was born before the Back to Sleep campaign). And, he hated being put on his tummy when he was awake. Interestingly, American babies are crawling later since the back to sleep, though this does not delay walking. I know that my kids who slept on their tummies, crept in their sleep. At any rate, I am glad it's lessening SIDs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Chicago's burbs
1,013 posts, read 4,064,020 times
Reputation: 905
My pediatrician's recommendation is to start solids between 4 and 6 months, when the baby begins to show interest. I started my DD at 5 months because that is when she seemed interested. I honestly can't remember when I started my 4 1/2 year old DS on solids. Personally, I think following the baby's cues is a good rule to follow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 29,722,259 times
Reputation: 14499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Maybe you misinterpreted your doctor. As I said earlier, parents are advised to be up to date on their immunizations to protect their babies until such time as the babies can be fully immunized. Also, babies do get some immunity from their mothers; in fact, this is the reason some vaccines cannot be given until maternal antibodies have worn off (MMR and Chickenpox). This is called "passive immunity". If a pregnant woman gets an immunization, her infant will get the benefit of this passive immunity. However, in most cases, that immunity wears off early, regardless of breastfeeding status, immunization status of the mother, etc. The only immunization recommended at birth is Hepatitis B. All others must wait until the infant is at least six weeks. Generally in the US, other childhood immunizations are started at two months.

Regarding sleep position, the "Back to Sleep" program was initiated in 1994. The puirpose of this program is to prevent SIDS. Like a lot of new programs, many people, including health professionals, did not agree with it at first. However, the results seem to indicate that back sleeping does help reduce the incidence of SIDS.

NICHD Back to Sleep Campaign
No I did not misunderstand. The intent was to use the fact I was, exclusively, breast feeding to delay the need to immunize her. I'd never heard of it before but I saw no reason to argue with the doctor. He was telling me to wait to start her immunizations. I, certainly, wasn't going to insist they give her a hep b shot before she went home from the hospital. They gave one to me instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,004 posts, read 98,863,560 times
Reputation: 31436
If they gave one to you, after she was born, it did your daughter absolutly no good whatsoever. Even with breast feeding, the antibodies are destroyed in the digestive system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2011, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Colorado
1,706 posts, read 2,924,722 times
Reputation: 1741
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADVentive View Post
To clarify, LLL recommends waiting to introduce solids for at least 6 months but does not discourage waiting longer if you desire, up to 12 months. They say that breastmilk should be the child's primary form of nutrition (comprising >50%) until at least the first birthday, at which point solids may start to make up the majority of the child's nutrition.
I am not an LLL follower, but even formula fed babies have the same recommendation during the first year. Introducing solids is about giving them a taste of real food, not about switching them totally.

When Katie was 4 months, her pediatrician told us to introduce solids. It was a year or two later that it was changed, and now it is changing back. I'm with a previous poster, it is about watching your child's cues. Katie was more than ready, some kids aren't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2011, 08:25 PM
 
Location: here
24,472 posts, read 28,756,384 times
Reputation: 31051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Skeffington View Post
My cousin was a disciple of the La Leche League, and she almost starved her child. She was determined not to give him any solid food until he was a year old. He was constantly crying and latched onto her boob 24/7. She could hardly go anywhere. She finally, grudgingly, started giving him some cereal at 7 months.

I, myself, raised two healthy children on formula and started them on solid food at a couple months. They have never had any allergies, tubes in their ears, etc.

To each his own. You have to follow your own motherly instincts and do what you know is best for YOUR child, not follow a blueprint for someone else's.
that is ridiculous! I have never heard of breastfeeding exclusively for a year. I've heard of introducing solids around 4-6 months. I think your cousin may have misunderstood something somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top