1st food- baby cereal WIC says yes....

Sherri - posted on 06/09/2012 ( 153 moms have responded )

9,593

15

387

So I happened to get a hand out that all moms get at WIC yesterday. It is a form that is distributed by NH Dept of Health & Human Services - WIC Program. Photos/materials provided by NYS Department of Health



I was reading over it and found something interesting. Since this came directly from the infant nutritionist that I met with yesterday.



So here it is:



How much I might eat each day:



Breastfeed on demand, 6 or more times a day. Breastmilk is all I need until I am 6 months old. (I don't think anyone will dispute this)



If I am ready for solid foods, start out with 1-2 tbsp of single-grain rice infant cereal. This is the first food that should be given.



Wait 7 days to feed me another new food which should be oat or barley infant cereal, so you can watch me for food allergies.



My appetite will grow as I grow. If I seem hungry for another meal, I can have another serving of cereal or once the cereals have all been tried 1-2tbsp of pureed vegetables or fruits.



So I know there is a big controversy as to giving an infant cereal at all. However, if this is what is being recommended everywhere you turn and by so called experts on infant nutrition. How would a new mom even think it was not the best? What are your thoughts?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Rosie - posted on 06/15/2012

8,657

30

315

i don't think it should be recommended as a first food. most people i know simply think that rice cereal is what the child should be eating and give it too them multiple times a day-including myself.
as i've gotten older and wiser, lol, i have learned a few more things, and don't feel it is necessary at all for a child. do i think of it as some horrible evil thing? well...no. it is nutritious, has iron, vitamins etc...but i think that all people should be eating mostly vegetables and fruits, and the way that doctors, WIC, and all these "experts" make you feel like grains of any kind are necessary to the diet when in all actuality they aren't. in fact WHOLE (plain rice cereal isn't whole..but they do make brown rice cereal) grains contain phytic acid which binds to minerals (like iron, calcium) and makes it so you don't absorb them.

so overall..i don't scoff at women who feed them to their kids, i did. i just wish that these experts would really push veggies and fruits instead of making it seem like grains are necessary to have a healthy child.

[deleted account]

I was advised to feed fruits as a first food but cereal was an option if real food was too strong tasting for my son. He had rice cereal a handful of times and every time it constipated him, we already had issues with constipation for him so we were giving him adequate amounts of water, we stopped using rice cereal and I've never brought another box, personally I think it's vile and will recommend against it for my friends babies, there is so much more out there that is better for them and nicer, although obviously there are exceptions for whom rice cereal is better but for the vast majorities it simply isn't.

With my daughter I used baby led weaning (Which is now advised by the NHS where I live) so rice Cereal isn't needed as baby is given table food rather than purees. Baby led weaning is far better way to wean your baby in my experience.

Neither of my children ate jar food, it was all freshly made (I lie I gave my son, no attempted to give my son one jar food while we were on a day trip once, he hated the consistency and ate my food far easier so I never bothered again, I just took my home made food out).

Jodi - posted on 06/12/2012

26,174

36

3891

"OK Jodi. You won't give them white rice, I actually know lots of people that don't eat it. Not because of the low nutritional content but because they don't like it. Although, if you feed your family anything processed, than your opinion on white rice, is moot. Thanks for sharing, though. "



How is it moot? I don't feed my family white rice because it is an extremely high GI food. There are two types of rice that are low GI, and are therefore a much slower burning sugar, so that's what I use if we have rice. I wish, if they insist on us feeding our babies rice cereal, that they would also insist it be made from either Basmati or brown rice. But no, they use plain white rice, which is incredibly high in converted sugars, which, in turn, convert to fat easily, therefore *potentially* increasing the risk of obesity.



Not ALL processed foods fall in this category (although, if we are honest with ourselves, we will acknowledge that natural foods are a much better option when given the choice). So I fail to see how my comment about white rice being crap and extremely high GI is moot. It is not my opinion that white rice is high GI and that there are healthier alternatives. It is fact.

Lady Heather - posted on 06/09/2012

2,448

17

91

Also if iron laden rice cereal is easy to digest, well...wow. You must have super poopers. Two bites backed my kid up for days. Rice is one of four components of the BRAT diet to treat diarrhea. Added iron is known to be constipating. It's hypoallergenic, yes. But digestible? I wouldn't call it that from my experience.

Jodi - posted on 06/09/2012

26,174

36

3891

I am not really a fan, to be honest. I did try it with my kids, because that was what was recommended, but they both totally hated the stuff. My son was a hungry baby, and he took really well to lots of different kinds of vegetables, but he HATED rice cereal. My daughter rejected pretty much everything until she was about 8-9 months old and then, would only eat it if it was off MY plate, so she was introduced to lots of meat and vegetables at a young age. If I were to have another one (which is NOT going to happen, LOL), I wouldn't bother with the rice cereal.

I also believe that rice cereal is not really that great. We are feeding our babies a processed food as a first food. I don't think it is an ideal start. Iron rich vegetables is a much better option IMO.

As to the question of how a new mother might think it is best because of all the paraphernalia? Well, I can see why she might think that. Lack of experience, and reliance on WIC produced information, of course she would. I don't think rice cereal is BAD, but I think you will find that many nutritionists now are questioning whether it is best. Trouble is with a government run program is that they need this verified with studies, etc, and that information simply isn't available at a level that would be considered absolute.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

153 Comments

View replies by

~♥Little Miss - posted on 07/01/2012

18,914

9

3002

I think this thread has run its course.

Closing it down.

~DM MoD Little Miss~

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 07/01/2012

3,377

8

66

Rosie---Phytic acid will lessen the absorbtion of calcium and iron. However, as long as you eat meats and get calcium via milk, you will be OK and you will benefit from all the other nutrients and fibre (high fibre, that is), which is in whole grains. Anyhow, it doesn't matter. You would need to eat a heck of a lot of fruits and veggies to get the amount of fibre and other nutrients, without also intaking whole grains. Which is why it is recommended as part of a daily healthy diet.

Rosie - posted on 07/01/2012

8,657

30

315

:) phytoestrogens and antioxidants are also in higher abundance in veggies and fruits, lol. once again you DON'T need grains. and, since grains contain phytic acid you don't get the benefit of minerals since they bind to them and make them unabsorbable.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 07/01/2012

3,377

8

66

I am on Crestor. Yes it is a statin (Rosuvastatin).

Here are other reasons whole grains helo reduce cholesterol.

The way in which whole grains protect the heart is not fully understood; the fiber in whole grains may be responsible for protecting the heart. Or other compounds, such as phytoestrogens and antioxidants, may be beneficial in lowering cholesterol and the risk of heart disease.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases...

How Cholesterol Impacts the Body

Your liver makes just about all of the cholesterol your body will need, with the help of the saturated fats and other foods you eat each day.

Carbohydrates provide healthy, essential nutrients and fiber to our diets.


http://www.3fatchicks.com/whole-grain-in...

Grains are also important sources of many nutrients:
•B vitamins (thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and folate) play a key role in metabolism.
•Folate (folic acid), one of the B vitamins, helps the body form red blood cells.
•Iron is used to carry oxygen in the blood.
•Magnesium is a mineral used in building bones and releasing energy from muscles.
•Selenium is important for a healthy immune system.


http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHea...

Rosie - posted on 07/01/2012

8,657

30

315

please tell me what it is that is in whole grains other than FIBER that lowers cholesterol then? cause i'm finding nothing else, you know why? because there is nothing else in them that lowers cholesterol....and psyllium is found in like 4 cereals that i've never heard of. it's in metamucil though....you know the powder shit you take when you are constipated...and it's not a "type" of fiber...it's the husks from the seed of the plantago ovata plant.

there are two "types" of fiber, soluble and insoluble. and yes, whole grains contain both of these types of fiber. soluble seems to lower cholesterol a bit better than insoluble, it's found it oats, peas, apples, psyllium, beans, citrus fruits. my POINT that i've been trying to make this whole time, that you seem to want to argue incessantly, is that you DO NOT NEED GRAINS TO GET FIBER. if you want to eat something that turns into sugar in your body, that depletes your body of minerals go ahead.....me, i'll get my fiber in other ways.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 07/01/2012

3,377

8

66

BTW - I have only continued debating this because I cannot get out of the house to enjoy our +30 weather (for the past 4 days). My son is sick with hand, foot and mouth virus (thanks to Daycare) and it is too hot for him, since today is the first day without him having a 103.5 fever. He is just starting to eat something (ice cream and yogurt) and move off of the couch...



Otherwise, I would have much better things to do. I am just really friggen bored! ;)

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 07/01/2012

3,377

8

66

Now, this I totally agree with. It is a matter of opinion. Which is what I have been saying the entire time. I have said, there is nothing wrong with starting them on fruits or veggies, instead. If that is what works for you. However, my point has been, there is also nothing wrong with starting them on infant cereal. It is obvious that others, including yourself, have a difficult time understanding or at least recognizing this.

And someone that has dictated several times before, that links are the best proof and way to show your stance and now suddenly all that is required is your opinion. Yeah, OK then. Well, it isn't enough for eveyone. ;)

I have a pamphlet and I am also on cholesterol pills. Since we already eat very well, the doctor determined, it would be very difficult to get me down to a 2 or 3, just by changing my food intake, since there isn't a heck of a lot that can be changed. I have the high cholesterol from inheriting it (runs in my family on both sides), not due to my food intake.

Jodi - posted on 07/01/2012

26,174

36

3891

See, the thing is, I don't feel the need to prove myself. I have an opinion, and I expressed it. I honestly can't be stuffed digging up my links. I have them, but I don't feel the need to write 50 paragraphs and 5,000 posts to prove anything. I know I'm not going to change your mind, so why bother? No-one else here seems to care, only you, and I have nothing I feel I need to prove to you, or even care whether you agree with me or not, so I'm not going to spend my time trying, really.

And yes, I know about psyllium fibre. You can get it through (pure) supplements without ingesting cereals if you choose, which is why I keep saying cereals aren't absolutely necessary. But it is why it is recommended that IF those with high cholesterol or diabetes are told to eat low GI/high fibre cereals if they are going to eat grains. Have you got the little GI book with all the brands in it? It is a fantastic help. If your cholesterol level is 9, you'd probably find it really helpful. I know when I got it, there were some foods I was quite surprised were so high on the glycemic index, while others were lower. It's practically my bible these days.

And quite honestly, it is totally irrelevant to this thread, so I am not going to take up space with a 50 paragraph post full of links. Let's face it, it's all a matter of opinion as to whether rice cereal is appropriate for an infant, even the doctors can't agree.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 07/01/2012

3,377

8

66

LOL - actually, no, Jodi. I am quite content with you not agreeing with me. However, you do make yourself come across as a "know it all" and often. But whatever, it doesn't matter. I am not taking it personally, I am simply annoyed.



Also, yes, you do debate every point I make, in every thread. Yes, I do think there is something wrong with that. Since, I feel I do, at times, give some pretty valid info but it appears, you like to dispute absolutely everything I ever put out there. That's fine. I will just sit in my corner and laugh and shake my head.



BTW - It is psyllium fibre that is recommended for high cholesterol and diabetes (which is only found in cereals), if you want to talk JUST fibre. Which, I wasn't. I am stating that whole grains have many benefits, not just fibre. ;)



Oh and where are all these links you can provide to dispute the ones I have given? I would like to see them, rather than just rely on your so called "word".

Jodi - posted on 07/01/2012

26,174

36

3891

MeMe, the thing is, for every valid link you come up with to support your argument, I can come up with a valid link to support mine. The FACT is that many professionals are divided on this issue. I never said I am right. I just provided my view, my opinion and my knowledge. It's a debate. I am on the opposing side to you. I am supposed to disagree with you, and I don't have to debate the way YOU want me to debate. Of course, when I am on the other side of a debate I believe you are wrong. Duh?

If you want to make that personal, and get all upset and huffy over it that's your problem.

The reason you can't stand debating with me is that I won't agree with you and I happen to debate EVERY point you make and you just don't like it. *shrug* Get the fuck over it.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 07/01/2012

3,377

8

66

Yes, Jodi, I will stick with mine. However, sitting there trying to tell me I am wrong, rather than stating that we have been given differing information or something like that, is where my problem lies. It is extremly common for you to debate this way and it is old and tiring.



As I said, I have high cholesterol. It is a 9. Yes, pretty friggen high. I was told to include high whole grain foods and it was not just for the fibre. I was also told to increase my veggies ( I don't like fruit). Now, you said, you don't disagree with the fact that it slows your digestion (which, btw, helps lower cholesterol) but you want to say that the ONLY reason for eating them is for fibre. Now, that makes no sense, otherwise you would dispute it all.



I also never ever said that one MUST eat them. Show me where I said that. I simply said they are good for you. For fuck sakes, this is why I cannot stand debating with you.



I find it rather amusing when someone can provide ample information and NOT from wiki, yet still have Jodi, refute it. Whatever.

Jodi - posted on 06/30/2012

26,174

36

3891

Actually, MeMe, I am going off the courses I went to with my husband, who is a diabetic and has cholesterol issues. He is generally supposed to avoid eating a lot of grains, and if he does have them, they are to be high in fibre/low GI. I wasn't disputing that they slow digestion down. I was disputing that diabetics and those with high cholesterol are told they MUST eat them. But whatever, if you want to go with that, then feel free. My husband avoids a lot of grains, and his cholesterol is back to normal and his diabetes is controlled by diet alone, so we'll just stick with what our dieticians tell us, and you can stick with yours :)

Back on topic, grains are not necessary for a young child. My opinion. If you decide to start with rice cereal, use only brown rice cereal, not white. Again, my opinion. Personally I think it tastes like shit anyway, and my kids rejected it, so I simply wouldn't bother.

Rosie - posted on 06/30/2012

8,657

30

315

fiber lowers cholesterol, not anything else in whole grains. it's fiber that slows the digestive system.... veggies and fruit have sugar yes, but do not affect your blood sugar the way grains do, not even close. it's not opinion it's fact.

and actually yes, i do believe that the opinion of the USDA is completely wrong. as well as it's recommendations for a low fat diet. there aren't any reliable studies done that prove high fat diets contribute to heart disease. the one that the government goes off of involved 22 countries around the world, the scientist involved took 7 countries that proved his hypothesis and disregarded the others even though they showed completely different results, and the government ran with it. 1/2 of all people that come in with a heart attack don't have high cholesterol levels. plenty of people around the world eat high fat diets and are the perfect picture of health. the inuits eat nothing but whale blubber and heart disease and obesity are virtually unknown. the maasai tribe in africa eat meat, milk and blood. no heart disease either. also, my own cholesterol levels have never been high, but my HDL has increased since eating more fats and lowering my grain intake. oh, and MY IBS symptoms have decreased and virtually disappeared since changing my diet as well..



what do we eat in america? what we're told to eat..low fat, high in grain diet. and yet we have so much heart disease and diabetes, and the numbers are increasing. obviously something is wrong with the recommendations.

you believe what you want, i'll go with what i believe. i see what we have become under these recommendations, and i don't for a second believe that they are right. we can go back and forth all day long, lol. but your opinion is what it is, and mine is what it is. meh...

~♥Little Miss - posted on 06/30/2012

18,914

9

3002

*****MOD WARNING******

Ok ladies, enough of the bickering over who knows more. Lets get this thread back on track or it is being shut down. Final warning.

~DM MoD Little Miss~

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/30/2012

3,377

8

66

Bullshit. My Dad, my mother and I have high cholesterol and we were told to eat them because it will help lower our cholesterol, since it slows the digestive system and has low fat levels, within them. Not for the fibre.



However, you know everything, Jodi. We'll just go with that. We'll just say that ALL the info I have provided from DOCTORS (nutrionists) are wrong, simply because Jodi, spoke. I guess the year worth of courses I took, were a crock too. Whatever.



I also just went to a gastroenterologist for IBS, guess what they told me to add more of to my diet? Yeah, whole grains. They told me to get some of them from cereals, too. Why? Because it will slow my digestion and several cereals have whole grains and nope, NOT ONLY because of fibre. Of course it helps, too. I guess they spent a shitload of years in University for nothing.



I guess, you missed this.



Grains, especially whole grains, are an essential part of a healthy diet. All types of grains are good sources of complex carbohydrates and some key vitamins and minerals (where's does it say fibre?). Grains are also naturally low in fat. All of this makes grains a healthy option.

Jodi - posted on 06/30/2012

26,174

36

3891

"I just find it offensive how some people like to get their opinions in the way of what is a perfect starter food."

It's YOUR opinion as to whether it is a perfect starter food. It is the opinion of others that it isn't, and if you are going to get offended by other people's opinions, then maybe this isn't the forum for you.

"They reduce cholesterol. Ever wonder why people with high cholesterol are told to EAT whole grains? It is not due to fibre, requirements. Oh and diabetics are often told to EAT them too. "

No, diabetics and people with high cholesterol are told to eat them ONLY IF they are high in fibre. They aren't told they must eat them.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/30/2012

3,377

8

66

A 6 month old is not relying on rice cereal for food. They rely on their breastmilk or formula, so I am unsure of how anyone thinks giving their 6 month old infant cereal is such a bad thing. It is meant to teach them how to eat, such as swallow. You can give them whatever you want, I just find it offensive how some people like to get their opinions in the way of what is a perfect starter food.



Oh and fruits and many veggies are full of sugar too. It is called "natural" sugar and they are a good sugar.



Also, NO, the only reason for whole grains is NOT only for the fibre. It IS also for the fact that it lowers your digestion, so that your body actually gets all of the nutrients. Yes, there are more nutrients than just fibre. I already provided information on that, though. They reduce cholesterol. Ever wonder why people with high cholesterol are told to EAT whole grains? It is not due to fibre, requirements. Oh and diabetics are often told to EAT them too.



Research shows that eating whole grains such as oatmeal, whole-wheat bread, and brown rice as part of a healthy diet can help reduce the risk of heart disease, some types of cancer, and Type-2 diabetes.



Oats, which contain an array of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants (as well as more protein than other common cereals), are always used whole. This means they are high in fiber, and researchers think that fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other substances in whole foods such as oats work together to provide maximum nutrition and health benefits.




http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/why-are...



Grains, especially whole grains, are an essential part of a healthy diet. All types of grains are good sources of complex carbohydrates and some key vitamins and minerals. Grains are also naturally low in fat. All of this makes grains a healthy option. Better yet, they've been linked to a lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers and other health problems.



The healthiest kinds of grains are whole grains. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that at least half of all the grains you eat are whole grains. Chances are you eat lots of grains already. But are they whole grains? If you're like most, you're not getting enough whole grains in your diet. See how to make whole grains a part of your healthy diet.



Types of grains



Also called cereals, grains and whole grains are the seeds of grasses cultivated for food. Grains and whole grains come in many shapes and sizes, from large kernels of popcorn to small quinoa seeds.

Whole grains. These are unrefined grains that haven't had their bran and germ removed by milling. Whole grains are better sources of fiber and other important nutrients, such as selenium, potassium and magnesium. Whole grains are either single foods, such as brown rice and popcorn, or ingredients in products, such as buckwheat in pancakes or whole wheat in bread.



Enriched grains. Enriched means that some of the nutrients lost during processing are added back in. Some enriched grains are grains that have lost B vitamins added back in — but not the lost fiber. Fortifying means adding in nutrients that don't occur naturally in the food. Most refined grains are enriched, and many enriched grains also are fortified with other vitamins and minerals, such as folic acid and iron. Some countries require certain refined grains to be enriched. Whole grains may or may not be fortified.
Doesn't sound that bad to me...;)



http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/whole-g...



Just to add - I have taken a good years worth of nutrition courses. Even back then, 8 years ago, whole grains and even fortified grains were a "good" grain to place into a healthy diet regimen.

Rosie - posted on 06/30/2012

8,657

30

315

meme, the only reason you "need" whole grains is for the fiber. that is the ONLY reason. like i said, you can get fiber without whole grains.
whole grains as previously stated contain phytic acid which binds to mineral and depletes your body of them (iron, calcium etc). so the small nutritional benefit you gain by eating whole grains is pretty much non existant after the phytic acid binds to them and takes them away from you.
also, whole grains are turned into sugar by your body. so basically you are eating pure sugar, and in some cases products that affect your blood sugar more than actual sugar does. take shredded wheat cereal for example. no sugar added to it at all-yet it affects your body worse than regular old table sugar.
ever wonder why diabetics are told to avoid some grains? because they raise your blood sugar. continually raising your blood sugar over time causes you to have diabetes, increases your chance of heart disease, makes you fatter, and is just not good for you in any way.

now i'm not saying people should NEVER eat grains, i do just in moderation. i just don't think they are necessary, and i DO think they are harmful if you eat too many of them, all the time. i just don't see the point of giving a nutrionally depleted, sugar filled thing to my child continually all the time acting as if it is something they need. cause they don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid

Rachel - posted on 06/29/2012

67

29

5

I have always made my own baby food but am interested in your book. What is it called and who is it by? Im on baby #5 and am already planning #6 =)

Kristel - posted on 06/27/2012

107

10

4

I went to WIC yesterday for our girls and they are already giving us meat WIC vouchers which is fine but the only brand I could find that abides by their rules is Gerber and yesterday the nutritionist said not to feed corn to our 7 month old Daughter... Well for anyone who has read the label it says it has cornstarch in it, and when I asked the nutritionist she seemed a little confused as to wether or not it was ok to eat. I would ask her doctor... But really it's whatever you feel most comfortable with because it is your baby. We gave both our daughters infant cereal first, but it seems to really back them up if you give them too much... I would give it with some sort of veggie and breast milk. You can also start them on veggies instead of rice cereal.

[deleted account]

Meme it isn't personal, you stated that you felt some people just like disagreeing (or something to that effect, I haven't got time to re-read posts) so I just wanted to clarify why *I* was disagreeing with the information you posted. Again I don't doubt what you are saying, I'm sure your doctors have told you that, there is obviously information out there stating the same thing. Tbh it would be a boring debate group if we all agreed all the time :-)

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/26/2012

3,377

8

66

No issues with disagreeing. I am disagreeing with you. ;)



Since I got my info, not only from research but from the Children's Hospital pediatrician I met with (and my own pediatrician). So, perhaps, like many things, doctors have different opinions AND of course if an article says one thing, you can ALWAYS find one that says another.



I also have two children with 12 years apart in age and I received the exact same info 12 years before my son was born - for my daughter - from a different pediatrician in a different Province. So, like you Toni, I have had several doctors suggest exactly what I have said, to me. I don't think anyone here is wrong but some people sure like to present it that way. Meh. I also know many mothers where their little one did NOT require any more night feeds after 13lbs.



No worries. I am SO used to be disagreed with (in DM), that I will leave you all, to disagree with each other. Have a great day.



BTW - I have said this is generalized information. It is up to the parent what they do with it. Kinda like, I used the CIO method to get my son sleep trained (I co-slept with my daughter and it was hell). Yep, if one reads about it and it interests them, it WILL work for them. If one does not agree with it, they will find something else to agree with. Whatever.



***Edited for more detail

[deleted account]

My health visitors, midwives and doctors all recommend continuing to give night feeds to baby up to around 6 months IF they are waking for them (they never mentioned any ideal weight for sleeping through), as the link I provided showed. I am disagreeing because the information I was provided with was different and when I double checked it on the NHS website that information confirmed what I was told. Looking at all the children I know too it seems many children need night feeds past 3 months (my son was an oddity, all the other moms were jealous and wanted to know my trick, it's just he's a great sleeper).

Being capable of something and actually being able to do something are two totally different things, that is common sense, I am capable of rock climbing, I can't do it though. Yes at 3 months many babies are capable of sleeping through and many do but on the other hand many don't because although they are capable of it they still need to wake up for whatever reason, and likewise there are many who are not capable of sleeping through at three months or four or five months, in the links you provided it states this as I pointed out earlier.

Janice - posted on 06/26/2012

1,890

18

63

Most babies do not begin sleeping through the night (six to eight hours) without waking until about 3 months of age, or until they weigh 12 to 13 pounds. About two-thirds of babies are able to sleep through the night on a regular basis by the age of 6 months.

Meme This is from the 1st link. You conveniently left out the second sentence. It clearly states that only 2/3 sleep through at 6 months.

Toni did a great job so I wont keep going. Not every baby is metabolically identical so I agree with Jodi there is not a specific weight or age in which all babies can sleep through. Additionally most of the links state that 6 hours is considered sleeping through so if you put your baby to bed at 8 they may wake up at 2am. Babies are constantly going through growth spurts and I think its silly to deny a tiny 4 month old a night feed simply for the fact that they shouldn't need it, but maybe they are growing and they do need it.

My pediatrician says 6 months is the age in which babies do not "need" to eat in the middle of the night. Whose doctor is right?

My daughter was a ball of sleep issues as an infant yet once I did sleep train at 10 months, she became an awesome sleeper and people were always amazed at how well she slept at night and at nap. My friend did like you and stopped night feeding at 3 months but yet her son continued to wake during the night for over a year. Why? because every baby is different. My son is almost 7 months. Most nights he does sleep through or wakes and only cries for a minute and puts himself back to sleep. However some nights he starts wailing and I know he is hungry and I go in his room and he eats for almost 10 minutes which a full meal for him. This occurs any time between 12:30 and 2:30 then he sleeps till 7:30. He is about 16lbs.

Ummm how did we get on this topic?

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/26/2012

3,377

8

66

I went there because it appears you have a really hard time with anything I ever have to say. I state something and Jodi has to find a way to determine it is untrue. I provided ample links, to show where I was coming from (yes, it was after your reply but I did it to prove I am not full of hot air).

It seems to me you often make statements or reply with information, to "correct" me. To be very honest, it is becoming very tiring and extremely annoying. According to each link I provided, it states that by 13lbs, most babies can sleep through the night (meaning, they do not require a feeding, otherwise, how could they sleep through the night?). This is also the most common weight to start sleep training. It is highly recommended to not do this before they are 13lbs. They simply still require the nourishment before hand. if your baby sleeps on their own before this weight, great. If they wake, then you should feed them.

Jodi - posted on 06/26/2012

26,174

36

3891

"It's also nice to know, Jodi. That you are now a doctor. Whatever! "

Really MeMe? You had to go there? Why do you seriously need to use such insults to debate. All I was trying to say was that every child is different, and suggesting that it is as simple as putting a number on is just not true. I thought I was pretty clear on that, but evidently you took it as some personal slight. I apologise if that was the case, it was not my intention. But there really is no reason for the insults.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/26/2012

3,377

8

66

Really, all I was getting at is that by 13lbs, they are usually capable of sleeping through the night. So, if baby wakes, don't run for a bottle or pull out the breast first. Try everything else FIRST. You may be surprised, that they are NOT waking due to hunger but do to the need of comfort.



A lot of mothers think that the baby woke because they are hungry. So, they rush to feed them. When in reality, most babies, by this weight, just woke for a different reason, not from hunger. If you want to sleep train and have a good sleeper, it is suggested that 3 months/13lbs, IS the best time to start. Simply because they are typically capable of sleeping through the night BUT they often need to be trained to do so (not always, some babies, do this on their own).



I did sleep train and I will say I recommend it to all. I have had a hell of an awesome sleeper, since 3.5 months. My husband and I have never had issues surronding sleep, simply because I took the suggestions and used them. If you don't mind waking through the night until they are whatever age, fine. I simply am not, I like my sleep. My son has went to bed at 8pm every single night for the past 16.5 months and has not woke until 6-7am. Sleep training is awesome and it really works, well. I also have one extremly happy boy because he sleeps so well. Even the Daycare is amazed with how good his sleeping habits are. I thank sleep training and my willingness to not be closed minded and to take the suggestions. ;)

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/26/2012

3,377

8

66

Toni---Your first link doesn't say babies don't need night feeds at 13lbs just that it is often when babies are capable of sleeping through.



If a baby is capable of sleeping through, it means they also don't need to eat. Otherwise, how could they be sleeping through the night? If they are eating, then they are waking and not sleeping through. This is common sense. They can sleep through the night, once they hit 13 lbs AND that means they no longer need to be fed. Otherwise, like I said, they aren't sleeping through the night.



Anyhow, I provided many links. The reason I knew this is because my pediatrician is the one that told me this. While a pediatrician at our children's hospital confirmed. However, as I said, this is in most cases. Of course there are going to be some babies that don't fit this.



I am unsure of why it is such an issue for some to agree with facts? Anyhow, it doesn't matter. I put the information out there, do with it as you like.



Btw - My children were done with night feedings because I weaned them. They no longer needed them, so they did not get them. If they woke, they went back to sleep, not fed. I have some excellent sleepers.

[deleted account]

Many babies need feeds up to six months old, although by three months night feeds have often reduced to one or two feeds.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-a...

(just so you know I've read them)

Your first link doesn't say babies don't need night feeds at 13lbs just that it is often when babies are capable of sleeping through.

The anabel karmel link says at 13lbs that baby will need a dream feed at about 11pm so not sleeping through, they say baby needs to about 15/16lbs before they will sleep through.

The first live strong link is discussing how to change your babies sleep patterns, it is simply warning that before the 12/13lbs Mark babies more than likely won't sleep six-eight hrs at night not that a nighttime feed is not necessary.

"TIPS AND WARNINGS
Have realistic expectations. For babies under 6 months, sleeping through the night is defined as sleeping for more than five hours. If, despite trying strategies to skip a night feeding, your baby still wakes up for a night feeding, wait a month or two, then try again to eliminate it." ...from the second live strong link...basically under 6 months many babies will need to wake for a feed because they may only sleep for 5 hours and they may not be ready for it at 3 month so wait a couple of months if they aren't.


Again The third live strong link is only saying that before 12/13lbs they are unlikely to sleep through the night, not that they don't need a night feed after that weight.

The final article was discussing using a sleep training method to gain the magical sleeping through the night earlier, so it is by no means a true indication of what is normal for children who aren't following this method.

Yes your children may well have been done with night time feeding At 3 months but it is normal for children up to around six months to need night time feeds, not one of your links say it isn't.

btw my son stopped night time feeds at 6 week, he was nowhere near 13lbs at six weeks; at 5wks he weighed 7,9 1/2lbs, at 7wks 9lbs, he didnt reach 13lbs until 15wks and wasn't 15lbs until 31 wks, so over 6 months, yet he slept through from 6 wks; comparing him to my daughter (I didn't get her weighed as often) who didn't start sleeping through until around 6
months, at 5 wks she weighed 9,2lbs, 16wks she was 12,7lbs, 24 wks she was 14,12lbs and at 33wks she was 15,15 1/2lbs. Every child is different and has different needs, my son takes after his daddy who sleeps for England, my daughter looks to follow me.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/25/2012

3,377

8

66

It's also nice to know, Jodi. That you are now a doctor. Whatever!



Most babies do not begin sleeping through the night (six to eight hours) without waking until about 3 months of age, or until they weigh 12 to 13 pounds.



http://www.lpch.org/diseasehealthinfo/he...



Now this one says 11lbs but most I have read says 13lbs.



That’s because most four-month-old babies have reached that magic weight of 11 pounds, which means, metabolically speaking, they don't really need a nighttime feeding (though they may well demand one!).



If your baby is still waking to eat into his fifth or sixth month, you can be pretty sure he's not really hungry. He's just used to his midnight snack and the sweet dose of Mommy that comes with it.




http://www.whattoexpect.com/first-year/s...



http://www.annabelkarmel.com/nutrition/s...



Sleeping between six to eight hours without waking up is considered to be "sleeping through a night." Babies are usually not able to do this until they weigh approximately 12 or 13 lbs. or are at least 3 months old.



http://www.livestrong.com/article/87339-...



ETA:

Wait until your baby is 3 months before trying to reduce the number of night feedings; before that point, her tiny tummy really does need to be filled every few hours.



http://www.livestrong.com/article/514757...



Your baby is unlikely to sleep through the night until he is at least 3 months old and weighs at least 12 to 13 lbs.



http://www.livestrong.com/article/93450-...



The concept is that when the baby is having regular feeding/awake/sleeping times, his metabolism will grow used to eating at the same times. As the baby begins eating more at each feeding, he will slowly extend his sleep at night, sleeping 7-8 hours at a stretch by 7-9 weeks, and 10 hours at a stretch by 12 weeks old.



http://suite101.com/article/babywise-met...



Oh and BOTH my kids were breastfed at 3 months old. They BOTH no longer required night time feedings, since they were both 13lbs by this age. Funny how two kids in the very same home, didn't need to be fed during the night and WERE breastfed.



***Edited for clarification

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/25/2012

3,377

8

66

No one said it is not normal for them to wake, I am saying they do NOT need to be fed at night once they are 13lbs.



BTW - I can provide numerous links if you would like. I am not speaking out of my ass, here.



ETA:

It also DOES become a habit for the baby. Which is why a number of moms say their little one, wakes, so they give them a bottle or the breast but they do not eat even half of it (or feed for very long). Why? Because they don't need food. They are waking out of habit.



This is also generalized info. Of course each baby is different. On the most part, though, this is fact.

Jodi - posted on 06/25/2012

26,174

36

3891

It is really not as simple as putting a number on it......I think you will find every baby is different. Breastfed babies, in particular, will wake more frequently at night, and it is actually totally normal for them to be waking at night beyond 13lb. It is silly to specify a certain weight as the ideal time to refuse to feed them at night when every child is different. There are so many factors to take into consideration that specifying a weight is just silly. If it worked for you, great, but to say it is universal is disregarding individual and cultural differences. Factors such as milk production, sleep environment, schedule during the day, etc, all have bearing on whether or not a child sleeps through the night.

At 3 months old, it isn't a habit, it is usually because the child needs it. They aren't THAT capable of manipulating you yet :\

Sherri - posted on 06/25/2012

9,593

15

387

I never woke my son and he has been sleeping through the night since 7wks and no way 13lbs, He is only 13lbs now at 4mo's and sleeps 9:30pm and sleeps till 6am before he wakes to eat.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/24/2012

3,377

8

66

Yep, some wake on their own. My son didn't start waking on his own until he was close to 2.5 months. I had to wake him every 2-3 hours, since he was breastfed then. He was just a hard sleeper, I guess, not sure. By the time he was 2.5 months though, I did not have to wake him anymore, he did it on his own. By the time he was 3 months he was 13lbs and even if he did wake at night, he did not get fed.

All I am saying is once they are 13lbs, they no longer need to be fed during the night. Even if they wake on their own. Their tummies are big enough to go 6-8 hrs without food. I know many Mom's that continue to feed their child until they are 12 months, during the night, when they wake on their own. This is not required and is a bad habit for the child to get into. it makes it hard for them to learn it is bed time and eating is not a part of it.

[deleted account]

I had to wake my babies to ensure their blood sugar levels were maintained, if I left them to wake up on their own they wouldn't, the jaundice made them btw sleepy, however once they were a month old I no longer needed to wake them they woke when they were hungry, and neither was anywhere near 13lbs then.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/24/2012

3,377

8

66

Here, it is recommended your baby eats every 2-3 hours if they are breastfed and every 3-4 hours if they are formula fed, up to the age of 3 months or 13lbs. Some babies do not have an auto-hunger sensor and do not wake on their own, so they need to be woken.



A baby under 13lbs does not have a big enough stomach to hold enough food (milk) to get them through the night. By 13lbs, their metabolic rate has lessened and they can go longer through the night without eating. So, if they wake on their own, by this weight, they only need to go back to sleep, not be fed. I did not feed my son, once he was 13lbs, after 10pm and before 6am. Even if he woke, on his own.

Janice - posted on 06/24/2012

1,890

18

63

I never have waken my babies to eat even when they were tiny and both my babies had random nights where they slept 7 hours before they were 13lbs. Of course this wasnt the norm.

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/23/2012

3,377

8

66

Once they are 13lbs, they do not need to be woken to eat through the night. When they are this weight they have enough body fat to get them through the night. Their digestion and growth has slowed and they no longer need to eat during the night (6-8 hr period, my son went 9-10hrs).



By the time my son was 3 months he was 13lbs. I no longer woke him to eat, he no longer got fed if he woke, either. He still gained weight and developed as he should have.



I agree, Becca. No need for it by the time they are 3-5 months old.

Becca - posted on 06/23/2012

19

1

0

Just curious... why do they "need" to be woken at night to feed? Both my kids slept through the night at least a month before giving them solids, and drank ridiculous amounts of formula during the day ... no one ever told me to wake them either...

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/22/2012

3,377

8

66

I did a little research and Enfamil and Parents Choice have the highest sugar content (corn syrup).

Among the results, Enfamil Premium and Parent's Choice Premium Infant formulas had the highest sugar content at 13.5 and 12.4 grams of lactose per serving. Lactose is what scientists call the best type of sugar and it's the kind found in breast milk.

Three formulas tested low for any sugar: Gerber Good Start, Similac Advance Complete, and Enfamil Pro-Sobee.

But two, both made by Similac, did contain other added sugars. Similac Advance Organic Complete Nutrition contained one of the sweetest kind of sugars, sucrose, measuring in at 3.5 grams per serving. That's roughly the equivalent of one teaspoon of sugar for every five ounces.


I used the Similac Advanced Complete. Perhaps this is why I didn't find it too sweet. However, a teaspoon for every 5ozs, really doesn't seem like a lot to me either. Since, I only ever gave 8ozs. I didn't use that kind though.

[deleted account]

Yeah the formula I tasted was vile, definitely not sweet but then again your definition of sweet and mine may be completely different.

[deleted account]

Yeah the formula I tasted was vile, definitely not sweet but then again your definition of sweet and mine may be completely different.

Stifler's - posted on 06/21/2012

15,141

154

597

All of the ones I tried were sickly sweet and so was my breastmilk

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/21/2012

3,377

8

66

I think it depends on what kind you buy. I tried my sons and I didn't find it too sweet...

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 06/21/2012

3,377

8

66

Toni---Also just a random thought (its late im pondering) breastfed babies get tastes of what mom eats in the breast milk, especially if it is a strong flavoured food, so if they eat very flavoured spicy foods surely the child would become accustomed to the less bland because they are already getting small tasters via the milk. Maybe that's why my daughter turned her nose up at the blander foods offered her yet gobbled up the slightly more flavoured foods?



I would have to say this is a plausible theory, Toni. I stayed away from the spices while breastfeeding, simply because it bothered my son. However, if a baby tolerates it, then I could see them having a taste for spicer or more spiced foods to begin.



Truly though, I don't think there is a problem if you choose fruits first. I just think it is suggested not to, since "some" babies will not take a liking to other more savoury or less sweet foods. So, it's just a caution more than a rule, IMO.



Where I did start with infant cereal, I can say within 2 weeks, I was adding fruits to it. So, in essence, I may not have initially started with fruits, it wasn't long thereafter that I did move onto them.

[deleted account]

I would tend to think if they are refusing most veges and meats there is something more than how they were weaned, and I honestly don't think most children have this severe a reaction if it is/was due to using fruit as a first food.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms