What age was your baby ready for solids?

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

you do risk them having some troubles or refusing etc with getting used to foods

About this, there truly isn't any stark evidence for this at all. From personal experience, my first had solids at just before six months, she clearly wasn't ready, and it was a total battle. Well, she's extremely picky and has a ton of sensory issues. My second, I chose to wait until she began picking up food and feeding herself. She's the most adventurous eater I know. In all honesty, I think that acceptance of textures and tastes is a highly individualized thing and just depends on the child's personality.

I completely do understand your hesitance to accept information different from what you have been provided with. It's only natural. I took my first daughter's pediatrician's advice on solids, breastfeeding and weaning and when I started doing my own research I was appalled- and actually quite confused and scared. How could he, a medical doctor, be completely misinformed on breastfeeding and child nutrition? The fact is, most doctors and nurses only receive about four hours of nutrition education. And they don't always stay current.

So yes, I do understand why you want to believe the advice you were given. And perhaps, for your girls, it was the right advice. We're just trying to get you to see that in acuality, the advice you were given isn't exactly accurate across the board and that perhaps it wouldn't be right for our children.

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

oh cool that means Im getting the hang off things :) He did say not to take it the wrong way I am the one who actually used the words higher level of intelligence he wasnt sure how to word it so he just agreed with me :) Im off to bed for the night I think Ill be interested to see your response Lisa

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

Please tell me what is contradictory Tara ? Aside from the 4-6 month issue which I already cleared up

Kellie - posted on 05/27/2011

"like my husband said to me I do need someone with a higher level of intelligence and who knows how to word things better to be on here speaking for me really"

Excuse me he said what to you?!?! If my partner had of put me down like that and said that to me i'd have told him to get fucked.

Now congrats! THAT was the most coherent post on this thread from you Mel, and you stated your case well and CLEARLY! so woo hoo for you :D

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

Can I just add that if the information were to be wrong, then would it not be putting alot of children in danger through WA or Australia? Also I might add I would be quite happy to show my child health nurse some of the links you guys have provided to see what her take is on it

Tara - posted on 05/27/2011

Much of what is in the pages you posted in your photobucket account actually contradict what you have told us. As there is a broad usage of terms such as "most babies" "average" etc.
Just saying.

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

ok please forgive me , like my husband said to me I do need someone with a higher level of intelligence and who knows how to word things better to be on here speaking for me really, but I dont have that so all I have is me, which means tings come across not always how I want to say it. I want to respond to everything you said in your post.

First one being the whole 4-6 months issue, 4-6 months was NEVER from my child health nurse, I think Ive mentioned this before she isa strong believer in 6 months not before, however she knew that my kids were started earlier and that was my choice and was on advice of different doctors one a GP and one the hospital. I believe 4-6 months because throughout my research I have seen alot of sites on the net (no I cant find them again now I wouldnt know where to begin looking, one I saw on a bayled weaning site) about how you can introduce solids anytime between 4-6 months but not recommended before the 4 month mark. So I choose to go by that.

Second thing, the article did not mention about it bein dangerous as such you are correct however, this was just wha I was told IN PERSON so scrap that if you wish, I still stand my ground that they do require solids from 6 months because that is what I have been led to believe from everyone here, and can you understand when you are told a certian thing by all the health professionals here in WA, that you would be slightly hesitant to believe something complete oppposite? I do believe there could be some truth to the iron thing about how a baby could have enough iron for even up to 9 months, I woudlnt personally think any older then that, however it is not just the iron thing, although Im aware I use this alot on here, but I have also stated on several occasions that , like that article says it is about getting them used to different tastesand textures and if you leave them longer you do risk them having some troubles or refusing etc with getting used to foods. Make sense?

After reading this artcile I personally believe that perhaps my kids constipation issues may be linked to not being able to sit properly or get around as much as other kids thier age, however I still woudlnt be about to hold off solids until a year JUST because my child couldnt sit without support. It doesnt directly say there (as far as I know) that you cant put your baby on solids when they cant sit I think it said that it helps them to digest the food better and what not.

I definately acknoledge now that it is possible they do put the minimum down for iron levels but the other things I woudlnt be willing to wait

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

OK, I got the photobucket files.



My thoughts on it are:



The pages you have copied note that babies are typically ready for solids -around- six months (and WHO and LLLI support this). Not 'it is dangerous and you MUST introduce solids between four and six months' which is what you have maintained as your stance.



They also note that 'around' six months babies will have an increased appetite which cannot be satisifed by breastfeeding alone. Unfortunately, I beg to differ, as my daughter continued to subsist solely on my milk until 10months, and then had no interest in solids more than a mouthful per day until around 19 months- and she continued to gain weight.



It should be noted that for any large nutritional benefit to be gained from the pureed 'solids' that they need to be given in quite large amounts- and your book's suggestion of number of meals DO seem very large- and if this is followed the risk of premature weaning increases sharply. When solids are given in large amounts the benefit of breastmilk decreases sharply.



As Jodie mentioned, it is usually the earliest age possible that is provided, to avoid any potential problems. SOME babies DO need solids at six months. And if they are -denied- they will have problems. But many other babies do -NOT- need solids at six months.



I have peer-reviewed research from pubMed which shows evidence that babies do not absolutely across the board have to have solids at six months.



Your booklet also notes that chewing ability is developed more towards 7-9 months. Most babies that go at their own pace regarding solids skip the pureed goo and go right to chewing their food.



In your average westernized hospital birth, the cord will be clamped almost immediately. This definitely can lead to insufficient iron stores by six months. However, it is a fact, and UNICEF supports this, that iron stores are not 'depleted' directly at six months, but that many babies will have sufficient iron stores to last until at least nine months if delayed cord clamping is practiced.



So- all-in-all, it sounds like these three pages (and honestly, I would like to see the cited sources page too) are taking a cookie-cutter approach to introducing solids, and like Jodie said, tailoring it to the neediest.



What it fails to mention is that the minerals in human milk are extremely bioavailable and is continued to be provided past six months.



A simple iron test can alleviate any concerns- and research has also shown that lower hemoglobin levels in babies actually may be normal.

Kellie - posted on 05/27/2011

The Photobucket works.

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

What about photobucket....

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

Scratch that, it wants me to download and install a program. Not gonna do that. :)

Bonnie - posted on 05/27/2011

My boys loved all the baby cereals, especially the fruit flavoured ones.

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

http://s1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff42...

here husband just made me a photobucket account

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

I *think* it may be working now.

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

Or do you have something like flickr or photobucket?

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

Top right hand corner of the page it says 'photos.'

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

umm....ok it works on my end....how do I upload it as a photo onto here?

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

Yeah...that froze my computer.

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

http://www.filefactory.com/f/a9a6ad73c61...

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

Makes sense Jodi. I have the information guys! got it in the mail today however the link is a link to a website that you can only open as a child health nurse becuase its 3 pages from the manual of the child health nurses in WA, so husband says he can try and put an attachment on the internet so I can link it.

Jenn - posted on 05/27/2011

I agree that the rice cereal reminds me of glue LOL! My son didn't care for it, but he loved all the other ones like oatmeal, barley, wheat, etc. His fav was the raspberry wheat yogurt one - he would gobble that stuff up like there was no tomorrow! I skipped the nasty rice cereal with the girls.

Kathy - posted on 05/27/2011

My poor kids! It's a wonder they made it through to adulthood with no allergies/sensitivities/fussiness! None of them had solids until well over 12 months old. I tried sooner, as I was told to by my doctor and clinis sister, but they refused. I had no intention of force-feeding so I didn't bother - just tried from time to time until they were interested. In the end I just put globs of stuff on their high-chair trays and they played with it with their fingers, experimenting with tastes and textures. All 3 of them followed this pattern.

They are all healthy adults, who have no allergies and will eat anything.



Interestingly, the advice I received at the time - 30 years ago - seems very similar to what Mel received with her children. I realise the difference is that her children have different needs, and I'm assuming that advice pertained to her babies, and not all babies.



All kids are different - my daughter's kids started eating family foods about 8 months old.

Liz - posted on 05/26/2011

I've never offered baby cereal to my son; I just started him on regular adult oatmeal (ground fine), which he loves. Nutrient and fibre rich, digestible, and yummy! But don't get me started on oatmeal. I'm an oatmeal fanatic.



I think his actual first food was mashed avocado, though.

Jodi - posted on 05/26/2011

" breast milk has less iron"



Mel, I'll just address this for a moment. Breast milk DOES have less iron, BUT the UPTAKE of the iron in breastmilk is more efficient (about 50%) than the uptake of iron in formula (about 10% from memory). So the lower amount of iron in breastmilk does not mean the baby is getting less iron. Does that make sense?

Mel - posted on 05/26/2011

Yes Im listening Kellie, and I know a few doctors out there still say that farex is the best starter food, but we were told it didnt matter and told to start on fruits and veges. I used to mix apple with the cereal for my kids. Anyhow my bub is awake Im off til tonight :) Appreciate you giving me your views its always interesting to hear all the different things people get told. Perhaps I was told with my breast fed baby to start on cereal because of the iron in it and becase breast milk has less iron , Im not sure my first was formula fed, so she would have gotten all the iron she needed from that. The one who said about the cereal not being a good starter food and that its better to introduce peanut paste eggs etc at an early age (they gave my bub this at 4 months) was a child dietician where as the person who told me to start my second girl on cereal at her 4 month needles was just a normal GP. I think everyone has so many different opinions because things change all the time. I personally think that not enough research has been done into theallergy thing , they used to say wait to introduce peanut butter til 1 or 2 yrs old, now they say give it to them early. I think everything changes alot and then some people still have old fashioned views and others have more up to date stuff

Kellie - posted on 05/26/2011

I hope the :/ wasn't to me Laura!

Mel, I'm going to give this a try so please stay with me ok?

IMO Farex is bland for a reason. It's their first taste of food that isn't either breastmilk or formula so if the flavour is too strong it's likely (IMO) they'll recoil making solids time unnecessarily traumatic. This was my experience with my daughter and Pear, the flavour was too strong for her so I switched to the blander Farex.

The reason for starting them on Farex is that it is one of the least reactive foods and is generally unlikely they will react negatively to it. That is not to say that no baby will react, just that the risk is lower with this starter food.

There IS nutritional value in farex, it has protein, Carbohydrates, Potassium and Iron in it. Still with me? Now I'm not a Nutritionist or Dietitian, But I am a Cook and I have worked in Hospitals and Aged Care where I've needed to know special diets and and who's allergic to what etc.

Different needs/wants/likes for everyone including babies.

Charlie - posted on 05/26/2011

Cooper liked rice cereal ...I think it looks and tastes like school glue ( Clag ) My boys liked the organic apricot and banana porridge for baby's .



My first showed signs at 5 months and started eating straight away , my second showed all the signs at 5 months as well ...we offered food but he wasnt really interested in eating solids until around 8 months .



I think you really need to take cues from your child , children do not develop at the exact same time or have the same needs ..just like my first son was ready at 5 months I would not have made him wait until six and just as my youngest was ready physically but not interested I would never have forced food down his throat .

Isobel - posted on 05/26/2011

:/

Mel - posted on 05/26/2011

definately, Kellie we were told it tastes bland and has little nutritional value and just to introduce the fruits and veges (with our first anyhow)

Kellie - posted on 05/26/2011

My daughter loves her rice cereal too your not the only one. I think the possible issue for some kids, note the 'think', 'possible' and 'some', is that the Farex is rather bland, so they're just not interested.

Mel - posted on 05/26/2011

my first daughter usd to scream as soon as the stuff went on her tongue, second bub loved it , mixed with breast milk it was fine, but mixed with water she got blocked up really bad, I wasnt expressing milk anymore so just took her off it. Gave all my rice cereal away and told myself I will never use that stuff ever again. They love rice crackers though both of them

Teresa - posted on 05/26/2011

My girls loved the rice cereal too. We put that crap in every single soupy baby food to thicken it up.... and make more cuz there were 2 kids to feed. ;)

As I've said repeatedly.... they started at 3.5 months and haven't had any food related issues ever. Even based on that though, I never 'recommend' babies starting solids under 6 months. ;)

Isobel - posted on 05/26/2011

my kids LOVED rice cereal...and all thing rice since. In fact, my son tried to negotiate all his vegetables at dinner tonight... if he three times his rice ;P

Sharon - posted on 05/26/2011

Nah - my kids loved their rice cereal too. They still do. huge fans of rice krispies. japanese rice crackers and mochi in all forms.

Amie - posted on 05/26/2011

Odd, after reading the thread it seems like mine are the only ones to actually like the rice cereal. Even now they like rice treats. Rice crackers, Rice cakes, etc. haha.

Amie - posted on 05/26/2011

Odd, after reading the thread it seems like mine are the only ones to actually like the rice cereal. Even now they like rice treats. Rice crackers, Rice cakes, etc. haha.

Isobel - posted on 05/26/2011

I know I'm really old...but we tilted our high chairs back if they weren't sitting straight enough... :)

Mel - posted on 05/26/2011

thanks Erin, wel it depends what you would consider a genuine developmental delay, I mean sure shes behind, but isnt there a whole tone of babies who are? From memory with the forms I filled out 2 days ago she is behind but not in the extreme concern area yet, so Im not too sure whether I shoule actually class this as developmentally delayed, but when I hear of kids who can sit or crawl I wouldnt assume they shoudllnt be on solids just because they coudlnt do that yet, but thats just my opinion. Honestly having to be able to do those things never crossed my mind it wasnt something brought up when my girls were put on solids that they had to do certain things. My child health believes 6 months plus for solids, but respected my choice to follow advice from others and start them earlier. Obviously with my first I wasnt given a choice but with my second I most definately had a choice.

Tara my docs said the same thing, that it was no longer reccomendated at all to use rice cereal, when I had Brianna anyhow

Erin - posted on 05/26/2011

Ok I'm going to post once more, and then bow out to avoid the aneurysm that started last night.

Mel, I didn't realise your baby had a genuine developmental delay that effects her ability to sit up. Much like Brianna, that makes her a special case, and the overall guidelines don't necessarily apply to her. So I will retract my assertion that she shouldn't be having any solids based on this fact alone.

I also wanted to point out that I am in no way advocating for waiting until 12 months to introduce solids. I am advocating for following a baby's cues, and disputing the fact that delaying (based on these cues) is dangerous.

Laura Zoey - posted on 05/26/2011

Eric hated the cereal. Rice, oatmeal, barley, the works just hated it all! I think in total before a year old he only finished a whole gerber portion jar of food twice! Usually he would eat three to four bites once a day!
He really loved retried beans, once started those arount ten months is the first time considered him 'eating' any solids. He'd eat about a tablespoon or so once a day and nibble other stuff off my plate. He didn't have three meals a day until about 19 months!

Liz - posted on 05/26/2011

Tara, it's good to hear that from an actual doctor! I think baby cereal is total and absolute rubbish.

Tara - posted on 05/26/2011

@Rebecca,
With my last baby my doc told me that he nor any of his colleagues recommend infant cereal any longer at any time in a baby's development, he said they are nutritional deficient and serve no purpose nor value in their diet, and in fact can lead to chronic constipation in babies, both breastfed and formula fed. We're in Canada, this is our family doctor who has been there for all 6 babies, he admits that in most cases, following a baby's cues for just about everything is the best way to parent.

Penny - posted on 05/26/2011

DANGEROUS.....really??? When my son was 12 months I took him to the doc as I was concerned that he wasnt on complete solids for breakfast lunch and dinner and he told me that my son was fine with how he was going and that he will get there when he is ready not when I am. He is now 19 months like I said before and a big hungry hippo now, demolishing everything in sight hahaha. My doctor also pointed out to me that just because there is a guideline of milestones for babies when they have reached certain ages, doesnt mean I have to be concerned if my child doesnt follow it to a tee. He said its a guidline based on AVERAGE and that many babies are above and many babies are below.

Tah - posted on 05/26/2011

2 months..............just joking...lol..stirring the pot...lol

Rebecca - posted on 05/26/2011

Again, I say listen to your baby's cues. They tend to let you know when they are interested in food. Talk to your doc and ask his/her opinion about your baby being ready. You can also just try it and see if they readily eat. If they don't and you have to force it...may not be the best time yet.

You know, my girl never dug cereal much. She preferred fruit, veg and, eventually, meat. I know you are "supposed" to do the whole cereal thing according to the Canadian Food Guide...but my kid didn't like it much. So, I listened to her cues and mixed a bit of brown rice in her apple sauce (or lamb).

However, just because this cereal thing didn't work for my kid, I'm not going to say, "Eating cereal is damaging and babies shouldn't eat it." That is MY experience, take it or leave it.

Amie - posted on 05/26/2011

It does depend on babies readiness and needs. One of my four started food early, she's still a chunker now at 4 with a healthy appetite. Maybe her weight issues are caused by starting food too early? haha. I'm kidding, she's not overweight. She's a solid child, with a solid punch at that. (No joke, she gave her older brother a black eye a few months ago)

We DO have allergies that run in our family. That is why we started with rice cereal for all of them (least likely to have an allergic reaction). We moved onto veggies, then fruit, table food and any allergens were introduced when they were older. In the hopes that IF they did indeed have a reaction their little bodies could cope a bit better than as an infant.

This (as so many things) comes down to what is best for each individual child. The generalizations are ONLY good as a GUIDEline for a jump off point. IF your child needs to eat early (or later) for a genuine reason, then by all means do so. However I have always encouraged my friends to double check all information they are given. I love my doctor, I love the public health nurses - I realize they are human and not infallible. They could very well be wrong.

Minnie - posted on 05/26/2011

And I thought we had covered it about a month ago, Teresa. Apparently not. Ah, well, I suppose we squeaked by with the skin of our teeth since Adelaide had not a crumb until 10 months (and had no more than a mouthful of food each day to around 19 months). And I swear that child has been in perpetual motion since day one, eight-legged spider monkey that she is. Yeah...I really don't see any signs of nutritional deficiency.



*pats boobs fondly* Good job ladies. :D

Teresa - posted on 05/26/2011

Stopped at the end of page 4, so.... sorry.

IT IS NOT DANGEROUS FOR ALL BABIES IF THEY DON'T START SOLIDS AT 6 MONTHS..... OR EVEN A YEAR!!!! SOME babies thrive and grow and are healthy on nothing but breastmilk til around a year. I don't give a damn what some research or expert says cuz I swear my happy, healthy, strong, thriving 3 year old is NOT a figment of my imagination.

OK.... I feel better now. Thanks for letting me get that out. I thought I covered that last night, but then this morning I read this 'dangerous' crap and it just ticked me off..... Can you tell? lol

Chatty - posted on 05/26/2011

Allergy origins are unknown and to suggest that delaying solids or giving them sooner than the recommended age will cause allergies is silly. To my knowledge there is no concrete evidence to support either side.

Roxanne has several food allergies, with peanuts being severe and potentially life threatening, and I do not believe that my starting her on rice cereal at 5 1/2 months had anything to do with that.

Mel - posted on 05/26/2011

ok if I didnt explain myself properly (I thought I did) I was told in general not just my own babies...and no need to feel sorry for my its my daughter who had to go through it all.