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.
My SIL gave her daughter Gerber 1st Foods applesauce in a bottle at 2 days old. Yes, I said 2 days...she came home from the hospital and gave her applesauce the very next day. Couldn't wait to brag about it and show off the bottle nipple she had cut an "X" into to make it possible for the thicker food to be sucked through. They were in such a hurry to get her eating everything...I remember her toddling around at 10 months old chewing on a giant pepperoni stick (and they throwing up the chunk she choked on). They would prop her up in a highchair and lay a whole piece of pizza in front of her to pick apart...
And I ended up being seen as the "over protective" parent because my 1st daughter (born 16 days after my niece) because I breastfed for months and didn't start solids until around 6 months...
Some people are just going to do whatever they think it right no matter what the "experts" say...it is rather frightening to see an infant that small trying to eat Frootloops though.
When my daughter was two months old, the pediatrician we were seeing at the time said to go ahead and feed her some infant cereal, because she was consuming a ridiculous amount of formula (before you judge us, I did not produce any milk and we had to use formula). It worked for us. We started pureed foods at four months, and didn't transition to regular food until she was almost two...I think she got most of her nutrition from drinking milk, because those jars of baby food aren't very nutritious.
Six months seems strange to me...my youngest was so interested in food that by the time she was 10 months, she was eating our regular dinners, with a fork. Her second word was chocolate
It always amuses me to see the ruckus studies like this stir up. I heard someone talking about this on the radio the other day, and the expert was taking calls. People called in to offer their own personal stories as though they somehow disproved the conclusions of the study.
People: Anecdotes are meaningless. It's conventional medical advice that infants should be fed breast milk or formula until they are ready for solid foods. When is that? For most kids, sometime between 5 and 8 months. For some outliers on either end it will be either earlier or later. Of course there are ill-informed parents buying into some image thing and thinking that an early start to solid foods somehow means their kids are more mature. THOSE are the people who should be educated. In some small percentage of cases they might actually be doing their kids some harm. There are probably just as many people keeping their kids on breastmilk or formula way past the point that the child is actually ready for solids.
What I'd like to see, instead of these meaningless studies that just generate headlines and anguish on message boards, is real education for parents. Show them what "ready for solids" means, and allow for the fact that for some kids it might actually be pretty early. Don't disparage parents who have actual experience with solids making their cranky baby sleep better--for some that actually works. For some it might have the opposite effect. I just think throwing studies around so that someone can get some press is the wrong way to do it.
Delaying all food too long is going to cause allergies. Early exposure to antigens is good for kids, it doesn't mean that little ones need an 8 course meal, but as soon as they show interest in what everyone else is eating, they should get at least a taste.
It always amuses me to see the ruckus studies like this stir up. I heard someone talking about this on the radio the other day, and the expert was taking calls. People called in to offer their own personal stories as though they somehow disproved the conclusions of the study.
People: Anecdotes are meaningless. It's conventional medical advice that infants should be fed breast milk or formula until they are ready for solid foods. When is that? For most kids, sometime between 5 and 8 months. For some outliers on either end it will be either earlier or later. Of course there are ill-informed parents buying into some image thing and thinking that an early start to solid foods somehow means their kids are more mature. THOSE are the people who should be educated. In some small percentage of cases they might actually be doing their kids some harm. There are probably just as many people keeping their kids on breastmilk or formula way past the point that the child is actually ready for solids.
What I'd like to see, instead of these meaningless studies that just generate headlines and anguish on message boards, is real education for parents. Show them what "ready for solids" means, and allow for the fact that for some kids it might actually be pretty early. Don't disparage parents who have actual experience with solids making their cranky baby sleep better--for some that actually works. For some it might have the opposite effect. I just think throwing studies around so that someone can get some press is the wrong way to do it.
Good post!
I hate it when people completely dismiss proven research and recommendations as being wrong because 'pffft, I did it this way and me/my kids turned out great!'. The older generation is especially guilty of that if new studies are different from the way they raised their kids. Guess what, just because something is shown to be bad for babies doesn't necessarily mean they'll get super sick right away or something. No, in fact they'll most likely be fine - babies are pretty sturdy and have been surviving in way more extreme conditions since beginning of mankind. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that certain factors don't increase the risk of problems, particularly for children that may already be prone to them - such as allergies or intestinal disorders from introducing solids too early. The real key is being cautious and really weighing the pros and the cons - so if the four month old is clearly starving and miserable around the clock, then MAYBE think about a bit of cereal, after doctor approval and making sure no other issues are going on. However, feeding them something off your table or something just because 'why not, he's grabbing it, he must want it' - is another matter altogether. And yes, I've known stories of people giving babies things like salami, or letting a two month old suck on a bit of chocolate - I kid you not, and people just don't realize how much harm that can do. In the case with the salami, btw, the kid, 10 months I think, ended up in the ER puking his guts out. Question, WHY do people do that??
When I was growing up in Russia it was normal practice to introduce a teaspoon of fresh-squeezed apple juice at two months, then fruit purees and cooked egg yolk at four months I think. Yes, we all grew up okay, though a large proportion of russian adults tend to suffer from things like gastritis and ulcers, don't know if it's related though. But still I'm grateful to my mom and MIL that they understood the recommendations are different now and accepted my decision to exclusively BF till about 5,5 months by which point ped said he's ready for solids. Though my MIL did say a few times that she just can't understand how a bit of fresh apple juice could be bad Well, it probably isn't. But I didn't feel like there was enough benefit in it to make up for even a tiny risk.
It always amuses me to see the ruckus studies like this stir up. I heard someone talking about this on the radio the other day, and the expert was taking calls. People called in to offer their own personal stories as though they somehow disproved the conclusions of the study.
People: Anecdotes are meaningless. It's conventional medical advice that infants should be fed breast milk or formula until they are ready for solid foods. When is that? For most kids, sometime between 5 and 8 months. For some outliers on either end it will be either earlier or later. Of course there are ill-informed parents buying into some image thing and thinking that an early start to solid foods somehow means their kids are more mature. THOSE are the people who should be educated. In some small percentage of cases they might actually be doing their kids some harm. There are probably just as many people keeping their kids on breastmilk or formula way past the point that the child is actually ready for solids.
What I'd like to see, instead of these meaningless studies that just generate headlines and anguish on message boards, is real education for parents. Show them what "ready for solids" means, and allow for the fact that for some kids it might actually be pretty early. Don't disparage parents who have actual experience with solids making their cranky baby sleep better--for some that actually works. For some it might have the opposite effect. I just think throwing studies around so that someone can get some press is the wrong way to do it.
Definitely the bolded. So many parents don't know the signs of when a baby is ready for solids - able to sit with minimal support (i.e. can sit up in a high chair without slumping), hand eye coordination developed enough to reach out and take something and bring it to their mouth, and no long has the tongue thrust reflex (pushes food automatically out of the mouth). These are the signs that show that the baby's gut has developed enough to cope with solid food.
It always amuses me to see the ruckus studies like this stir up. I heard someone talking about this on the radio the other day, and the expert was taking calls. People called in to offer their own personal stories as though they somehow disproved the conclusions of the study.
People: Anecdotes are meaningless. It's conventional medical advice that infants should be fed breast milk or formula until they are ready for solid foods. When is that? For most kids, sometime between 5 and 8 months. For some outliers on either end it will be either earlier or later. Of course there are ill-informed parents buying into some image thing and thinking that an early start to solid foods somehow means their kids are more mature. THOSE are the people who should be educated. In some small percentage of cases they might actually be doing their kids some harm. There are probably just as many people keeping their kids on breastmilk or formula way past the point that the child is actually ready for solids.
What I'd like to see, instead of these meaningless studies that just generate headlines and anguish on message boards, is real education for parents. Show them what "ready for solids" means, and allow for the fact that for some kids it might actually be pretty early. Don't disparage parents who have actual experience with solids making their cranky baby sleep better--for some that actually works. For some it might have the opposite effect. I just think throwing studies around so that someone can get some press is the wrong way to do it.
I wonder how many of the 148 (and growing no doubt) rep points came from this excellent post.
I guess I am in the extreme minority! I started my son on rice cereal when he was two weeks old.
Why? I was breastfeeding and the child wanted on every two hours. My nipples cracked and bled because he wasn't latching on properly.
I pumped and mixed my milk with the cereal until it was very thin. He would eat maybe 5 spoons twice a day.
Once I started giving him cereal he was content to breastfeed every 4-6 hours and I healed. (I also got a pacifier at the same time.)
He finally learned to latch on properly, but only had the breast and rice cereal for his first three months. After that I don't remember when he ate or drank whatever. We both hated that nasty smelling formula, but he drank it until he was about 10 months old. I was given a few dozen cans of dried baby food as a shower gift and these lasted beyond him. I gave a dozen or more away.
He was eating real people food before he was 11 months old. I have a picture of him with a Thanksgiving feast.
I'm the mother, not the doctor. I knew what both my child and I needed to exist peacefully together. I did what I felt was right.
The doctor works for me. That does not mean I have to listen to every piece of advice he/she dishes out.
go ahead and flame me now. I had my oldest on solids starting at 3 months. I breast fed unil about six weeks. I was fine with continuing, but he was done with me. He just wouldn't breast feed. I put him on formula. The boy would eat every two hours and want more. At three months the doc suggested son get 'thick formula'. Basically formula with a little rice cereal. ahhhh the peace! He started getting enough to eat. At 4 months, I started feeding him with a spoon and widened his varieties of food. I had an old fashioned hand crank food grinder. Whatever we were having for dinner, he got a taste of. He would eat anything. He is now 6 foot tall with a 30inch waist. And picky about what he eats! Sometime in elementary school he decided he would never eat anything green again. The only odd thing about his diet... if you want to call it odd... is he is allergic to shellfish. Not anaphylaxis allergic, but benedryl allergic, which is a shame because he likes shellfish.
When they are done "flaming" you, they can start on me. My mother had me on cereal at six weeks. I was not breast fed (she didn't know ANYBODY that ever did that back then) - she made my formula out of Carnation evaporated milk. At 52, I am not diabetic or overweight. I still have my tonsils, adenoids, and all of my other original working parts. I have no food or pet allergies.
I had my two girls on cereal a bit before 3 months - then pureed vegetables, then fruit. I didn't breast feed at all. There were still a lot of us who didn't in the '80's. My kids got enough to eat, were happy and satisfied, and had no food allergies. They have always been very healthy (now in their early and late 20's). You can scold me all you want, but I think it's a bit too late.
I had a cousin who was a La Leche League disciple, and her baby looked starved all the time - like a shriveled little old man. He was always screaming, and she had to nurse him practically every hour. She couldn't go anywhere or do anything - he was perpetually latched to her boob. I vowed then and there that NO WAY was I going to breastfeed. At six months, she grudgingly gave him some cereal, but I mean "grudgingly" because her La Leche mentor said not to - even though her doctor advised it. Her kids had a lot of food allergies (i.e. to dairy) and were frequently sick with ear infections. One had to have tubes in his ears.
Kids aren't necessarily one size fits all.
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.
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.
They were in such a hurry to get her eating everything...I remember her toddling around at 10 months old chewing on a giant pepperoni stick (and they throwing up the chunk she choked on). They would prop her up in a highchair and lay a whole piece of pizza in front of her to pick apart...
Well, it probably isn't. But I didn't feel like there was enough benefit in it to make up for even a tiny risk.
