What age was your baby ready for solids?

Merry - posted on 05/25/2011 ( 233 moms have responded )

9,274

169

263

My father in laws mom began rice cereal at two weeks for all her kids, also this is when she stopped breastmilk and started formula as per her drs orders. Apparently she was told breast,ilk was only good for two weeks.....

I started Eric on cereal at 6 months because my gerber info stuff all said that's when you should start solids.

He hated it, still had tongue thrust reflex and didn't really eat any of it til he was about 10 months!

Ok so since then I've found alot of info saying you should watch for readiness in the baby, not a specific age to start solids.

Such as

Sitting up alone

Pincher grasp

Tongue thrust reflex gon

Etc



When was your baby showing all the signs of readiness?(edited to add-And when did you actually begin solids?

Should you wait for all signs? Or should you go for it at x age even if the baby wasn't showing all signs of readiness?)

I assume that for most babies it's between 4-15 months or so, but this is a wide range that I've heard of from other moms.



Do you think it should be an arbitrary age? Or specific to each babies signs of readiness?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Jodi - posted on 05/26/2011

3,562

36

3907

And yet again, this became a debate about MEL'S children and their issues, as opposed to a general debate about feeding solids to babies in the general population. I'm done too. I have expressed my opinion. If it doesn't apply to your children, Mel, there is a reason for that. It's because every child is unique in their needs. There is not a piece of evidence ANYWHERE that calls it dangerous. Except this elusive child health nurse.

Ez - posted on 05/26/2011

6,569

25

237

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.

Jodi - posted on 05/26/2011

3,562

36

3907

Mel, your opinion is based on children who have specific, individual issues. That is not insult, that is fact. You then USE that knowledge to make sweeping general statements, like how dangerous it is to delay solids beyond 6 months. There are some issues on which your opinion is going to be biased based on your very unusual experiences. I couldn't imagine having to deal with what you had to deal with, but you really shouldn't presume that the advice YOU are given by health nurses and doctors for YOUR children is necessarily accurate or applicable for everyone. And that is exactly the point I am trying to make. It is NOT dangerous to delay solids beyond 6 months. Perhaps it was dangerous for YOUR children. But as a general statement? That is not corrrect.



I am not trying to be self righteous or nasty in any way. I am trying to point out that this probably isn't an issue that you should debate based on your PERSONAL experience. Because your experience is unique.

Tara - posted on 05/26/2011

2,567

14

114

".If your baby is full-term, healthy and exclusively breastfed for the first six months,
the iron stores he or she received at birth can last well into the second half of
his/her life.The iron from breastmilk is very well absorbed (49 per cent ) because it
comes with lactoferrin, lactose and vitamin C in the right amounts. Only 10 per cent
of the iron from infant formula and 4 per cent from iron-fortified infant cereals
is absorbed."

and on allergies...

"The intestines are the body's filtering system, screening out potentially harmful substances and letting in healthy nutrients.

In the early months, this filtering system is immature. As a result, allergens can enter the blood stream, causing the immune system to produce antibodies to that food, thereby creating a food allergy.

Breastfeeding is still best between four and seven months when a baby's intestinal lining goes through a developmental growth spurt called "closure," meaning the intestinal lining becomes more selective about what to let through.

By six to seven months of age your baby is able to filter out more of the offending allergens."
http://www.infactcanada.ca/Complementary...

This is why breast feeding is particularly important to delay solids if there is a family history of food allergy, and especially to delay the introduction of foods to which other family members are allergic. "
http://www.healthdiscoveries.net/breast-...

There are more, I can post them if you want.
Breastfed babies are protected from allergens. Breastfed babies have a superior digestive system for protecting them from food borne illnesses and allergens.
Breastfed babies have excellent iron stores, well into the second year of life. And not only that but it's actually iron that baby can use, only 4% of the iron in that nasty baby cereal is actually absorbed, the rest just causes constipation.
There exists a wealth of breastfeeding information out there, lots of it agreed on by the international medical community.
Ask your baby nurse if she has ever heard of WHO or INFACT or Dr.Jack Newman.
All are excellent medical sources for the most current and up to date information on breastfeeding.
If it were "dangerous" to allow a healthy breastfed baby to continue nursing without really eating solid food past 6 months then most of the kids I know were or are in danger.
Some kids take until well into their second year of life to begin eating like a big person. Breastmilk still contains the majority of their needed cholesterol, fat and amino acids, not to mention the calories and vitamin content.
Most babies will start solids with success around 6-9 months, and only ftt babies require additional food before 4 months of age if they are breastfed. And almost all cases of FTT in a breastfed infant are a result of another underlying issue such as a development issue with their anatomy such as with Brianne.
Normal, healthy breastfed infants can do just fine with just breastmilk until after 6 months, it's not dangerous.

Jodi - posted on 05/26/2011

3,562

36

3907

" 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?

233 Comments

View replies by

Rosie - posted on 05/30/2011

8,657

30

321

oh and i just want to say that laura IS spot on. if i couldn't get my kids to eat, then i was going to get them something i KNEW they were going to eat. basically eating the mcdonalds or whatever was better in the dieticians eyes than not eating at all.

Zoe - posted on 05/30/2011

7

22

0

the earliest i started any of mine on solids was 2 weeks , and she was having 1/2 a rusk 3 times a day and 7 bottles of 8oz , she was a big greedy baby , i was told she would be a fat lazy teenager , this has shown not to be true , she is slim, healthy very active and about to finish collage , my latest on solids was 3 months and she has always been a fussy eater

Rosie - posted on 05/30/2011

8,657

30

321

ok, i'm gonna add my story to this. my children were all underweight, less than the first percentile. born healthy 8-9 lbs. and then had issues where they wouldn't keep anything down. after my oldest was 6 months he was admited into the hospital. i think he'd only gained like 3 lbs at that time. after multiple hospital stays and many specialists and doctors coming to see my son, they still couldn't figure out what was wrong with him. i saw many different dieticians, as i went to 2 different hospitals 3 different times. EACH ONE OF THEM, told me to give my child junk food. NOW, they said not all of the time obviously, but they did say give junk food. basically what was said was to give calories calories calories, and little to no water. put butter on everything, use high fat creams, milks, carnation instant breakfast, pediasure. if your child is eating broccali, put cheese on it, if you make baked potatoes, make sure to put butter cheese bacon and sour cream on it. if they want mcdonalds, give em mcdonalds. if they want cookies instead of an apple, give em cookies. obviously push the apples, and make sure there's peanut butter or caramel or something to dip it in, but cookies were always an option. the university of iowa is ranked in the top twenty hospitals in my country, they know what they're talking about. i fully believe mel when she states they told her to give her child junk food. now, i'm not sure if they told her to do it all of the time, but i'm sure they did tell her to cause i was told to as well.

Jenn - posted on 05/30/2011

2,683

36

96

I think Laura makes a good point - one that I myself wasn't seeing with Mel until we talked. Just imagine ladies, that you are a young new mother, and your baby is having medical issues. You're scared and clueless (no offence meant - just that you're not a medical professional), and all you want is to see your baby healthy and thriving. Who do you think you're going to listen to? Are you going to listen to the Dr who is caring for your child? 9 times out of 10, I think yes, you would. I know I probably would have if I was her. And we all know that Dr's are not perfect and they don't know everything, so perhaps the Dr did suggest/order her to feed her daughter "junk food", while another Dr would have suggested things like avacado, cream, butter, etc. So here you are, young, scared, and worried - tell me that you wouldn't have followed your Dr's orders. Maybe looking back when things are more calm and you're more level headed, and perhaps have done some of your own research, you might see that "junk food" wasn't the best choice, but it is what it is and there's no changing the past. She now feeds her daughter a healthier high-fat diet, and isn't that what matters most? That her daughter is healthy and growing, and she learned some things along the way. But during scary times when it comes to our kids and our heads are spinning, it's very easy to blindly listen to the Dr and take their word as gospel.

Mel - posted on 05/30/2011

5,539

58

228

Ive gone thru all my back up CDs, (I used to have Briannas story on hard drive but lost that last august), and I have found some stuff that I had written up plus some other info. Ill put it all together on a thread on here sometime tonight, if it gets removed cool if not then you guys will have everything that will hopefully explain things better

Jodi - posted on 05/30/2011

3,562

36

3907

Mel, I cant' understand how a McDonalds cheesburger and thickshakes is better than one made at home without the trans fats, preservatives, additives and sodium. I think that's the part that baffles me. I could prepare a thickshake or burger here with the same level of calories but with little to none of this stuff that is actually harmful and in fact, contains even HEALTHIER nutrients, and tastes just as good. I suspect that is what most people have issue with and can't understand.

Mel - posted on 05/30/2011

5,539

58

228

there are high calorie food that are healthy but for tube dependant kids, the rules go out the door, completely

Mel - posted on 05/30/2011

5,539

58

228

ok I think Im going to take jenn's advice that I declined a while back and post a thread on here SOLELY for Briannas story, to hopefully give you a better understand...does that sound ok or would be it completely against policies? I dont feel comfortable with it, but I am starting to feel it may be easier then having to clarify things alot when I dont communicate things properly

Merry - posted on 05/30/2011

9,274

169

263

When my obgyn was worried tha I was a bmi of 19 and pregnant and still breastfeeding she told me to gain weight at all costs. She mentioned ice cream, milk shakes, extra butter on everything, cheese on everything, etc. She said quality of food doesn't matter as long as I gain weight.

I listened and gained weight.

Switched to a midwife late in pregnancy and she was appalled with the advise I got, she said quality of food always matters and I should have been advised better to eat good fats.

Point is, I don't doubt mels dr said mc donalds etc, if her dr is anything like my ob, it's quite likely they specified all those junk foods cuz that's what my ob said to me.

I don't agree it's the best advise, but when our dr says something we tend to believe them.....

I learned my lesson tho, I don't blindly follow ANY dr anymore. It's sad, cuz we were taught to trust the drs unconditionally and now we should really get out of that habit and stay cautious of any and all advise.

Jodi - posted on 05/30/2011

3,562

36

3907

Tara, it has been previously stated that it was McDonalds cheesburgers and thick shakes, although she has ALSO stated full creams and cheese. Mixed messages, but I do remember her saying she had taken the McDonalds into the hospital, supposedly at the request of her doctors/nurses... :\

But to be honest, it confuses me too, because there are many high calorie foods that are perfectly healthy.

Tara - posted on 05/30/2011

2,567

14

114

Correct me if I am wrong and this info has already been given, but I need to ask...
Mel, when you talk about having to give your kids "junk food" when they were small, on the advice of a doctor, exactly what foods were you told to give them?
When we hear junk food we think of certain things, usually loaded with sodium, trans-fats, additives and preservatives, food colouring etc. etc. so can you tell us what it is you fed them when you were told to give them junk food?
Was it chips and chocolate?
Was it McDonalds and Burger King?
Was it Kraft Dinner and Hot Dogs?
What was it that you keep referring to as "junk food"?
Perhaps if you clarify for us exactly WHAT you fed your kids when they were FTT then perhaps we may discontinue coming back to the "junk food" issue with you. We just want to know Mel, what your doctor told you is okay to feed a FTT baby and how that constitutes as "junk food".
Thanks in advance for clarifying for us..

Momof1 - posted on 05/30/2011

528

0

17

I started at 6 months, however my son showed signs of readiness at at least 5 months. I knew that breast was best for the first 6 months, so I told my husband we aren't giving him solids until he is 6 months. He agreed and the day he turned 6 months, he ate his oatmeal, way more then the box suggested a first timer would eat. He quickly moved on the my homemade baby food and by 8 months was eating what we ate. (He had his two bottom and two top, front, teeth.) I waited because of the information I was taught, heard and read. I wouldn't give a baby solids before four months, unless it was recommended by a ped, and then I would probably get a second opinion. I know there are some babies who have a hard time gaining weight, no matter how much breast milk or formula they are drinking. And some doctors do tell some parents to give their babies rice to help with reflux.

Jodi - posted on 05/30/2011

3,562

36

3907

I still don't understand why a high calorie diet HAS to involve junk food... even for your kids specifically, but anyway. A lot of those junk food items can be homemade, which means keeping it below the recommended upper sodium levels. I personally would have questioned the shit out of it. How did they justify the preservatives, additives and sodium levels vs. the calories which you can still get by making it yourself in a healthier way without all that shit?



But whatever.

Mel - posted on 05/30/2011

5,539

58

228

avacado is awesome I buy at least 2 a week for my 10 month old , and cream cheese as well

Mel - posted on 05/30/2011

5,539

58

228

No I dont Laura, of course high calorie food doesnt mean junk food in all cases this was only my kids specifically. My girls now have a high calorie diet that involves little junk food but USED to have a high calorie diet that involved junk food

Jenn - posted on 05/30/2011

2,683

36

96

OK Mel, I do have a much better understanding of where you're coming from in some of your thinking, but I'm still bothered by your use of the word "dangerous" and would like to point something out to you. While you still seem to stand by your thought that it's dangerous to delay solids past 6 months, you have also stated that not every baby is the same and you recognize that some babies are truly not ready until AFTER 6 months, and that that is OK - so in a round about way, you have agreed that it is in fact NOT dangerous. Yes, I think we ALL agree that at 6 months MOST babies are ready for solids, but for those who aren't ready, there is no danger in waiting.

Isobel - posted on 05/29/2011

9,849

0

286

guacamole...mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (SUPER high calorie AND good for you by the way)

Isobel - posted on 05/29/2011

9,849

0

286

Mel, I'm sorry but you seem to be of the belief that "high calorie" means "junk food".
There are plenty of high calorie foods that you can use to help your child put on weight that don't come from McDonald's.

ummmm... avocado, red meat, cream, cheese, fruit, carrots, corn, potatoes, etc.

the idea that you NEED fast food to increase calories for a baby that is Failure To Thrive...is not true.

[deleted account]

We started my oldest at 6 months and he didn't take to it at all. He didn't actually start eating food regulary until 9 months and prefered food off our plates not baby food.
My youngest is about to be 5 months and has been eating baby food for a week or two he loves it. He has bad reflux and is on meds so they suggested starting solids to help keep his meals down. He opens his mouth and swallows fine. My oldest was just like your son and did the tongue thrust forever so I guess it depends on the kid. Both mine were/are breastfed too.

Casey - posted on 05/29/2011

633

37

104

I tried my first baby on solids at 4 months but I felt that he wasn't ready so we held out until 5 months and then had another go at it and he was more ready for it then. I don't think any babies should be starting any kinds of solids until they are at least 4 months old as their little bodies are just not ready for it.

Amy - posted on 05/28/2011

4,793

17

376

When my kids lunged for food [any age - 3 months even], i'd let them lick it or try it. I remember buying a grinder for foods around 10 months with my daughter. They just really didn't eat much worth making a deal out of it until then.



My son...eh, not really too interested in solids. Loved his boobies. Was about a year. They tried stuff here and there, but didn't really make MEALS out of solids and both pretty much hated the cereals. I think their physical skills should certainly be accounted for. some kids just advance to things faster than others.



This baby's not out yet, but I'll just play it by ear. No set age would make me all of a sudden do solids.

Rosie - posted on 05/28/2011

8,657

30

321

i've only skimmed alittle, but if mel's children have problems then that could be affecting their size, and it's not how they're "supposed" to be.
i'm sure they're meant to be small, i am, my mother is, but i don't think that my 4 year old is "supposed" to weigh 27lbs. i sure as heck don't think my 11 year old is "supposed" to weigh 58 lbs. it's not natural. my 11 year old just had a bone growth scan and his bone age is about a year less than what his actual age is. he doesn't produce growth hormone which causes him to not grow very much. it also can delay puberty which once again isn't what is SUPPOSED to happen. i really think that since mels kids have had problems telling her her kids are supposed to be that way is kinda dangerous. let her listen to what her doctors are telling her about her kids.
normally i agree with you, most kids are completely normal even though small. however, in this case and in my childrens case i dont' really feel that's the case.

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

Ive heard on here that the calories are higher in milk then solids. Because my girls are skinny and Bri was off the charts for height but so low for weight they did an MRI (that combined iwth a few other things) they said a baby on a high calorie diet shouldnt be losing weight etc, and it was another waste of time she was perfectly healthy :)

This is me at 38 week with brianna http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff42...

Apparently i was really small, I wore a tight top to try and show my belly for the photo that night lol

Merry - posted on 05/28/2011

9,274

169

263

Well I guess I'm the exception :) I'm small, 120 and 5'3 but Eric was huge! Born at 8lbs he was 14 by 2 months, 18 at 3 months, 20 at 4 months, and 23 at 6 months! That's when we started trying foods, but he didn't take to them. By the time he took in some foods he was 25 lbs at 10 months. Then his weight drasticly slowed down. 26 by a year, 27 by 1 1/2, and 28 by two years.
He used to be over the 100% for weight, and now he's 26% for weight! Jdk, I just think I have fatty milk. Or something, because he was huge and now is quite normal :) if anything the introduction of solids slowed his weight gain, or maybe it didn't matter, I believe all bs airs slow in the 9-34 month range with all the walking etc. So I think solids don't really affect weight gain, and if anything breastmilk is much fattier :)

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

Your so right Dana while theres a few things I still struggle to change my opinion on the amount of things Ive learned and found out on here in the past 3 years is just amazing, I coudlnt even begin to list it all, sometimes things Im not about to change personally but it makes me AWARE of them which is great

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

when I was pregnant with brianna they did a 36 weeks scan because they were worried about how small I was, I eat everyting I dont hold back they thought I wasnt eating , I only gained 3 kg even then it was gain a kilo at a checkup then lose one, I eat BULK. And Im a junk food addict. Im 53 kg now as I have been for a long time bar pregnancy (116 lbs apparently). My MIL took her kids to the doctors because everyone told her there was something wrong with them because they were too skinny. I really wish dieticians listened to parents sometimes and didnt stress so much about weight. Sure Brianna had issues that made her lose wieight, but regardless she would have been small. Because I carry small to I got the comments from people al the time concerned about the baby, they had seen people small but never that small apparently. My hairdresser asked my friend if I was still pregnant at one stage. WIth paige though for some reason I actually put on 17 kg! (37lbs) thought I would have a massive baby but went to 41 +1 weeks before induction and she was 7 lbz 11oz, perfect weight to me. Tara I always wanted a big family, how hard it is?

[deleted account]

Lisa hit the nail on the head. Doctors and nurses are NOT nutritionists or dieticians. They have little to no formal nutritional training. Hell, some of them aren't even parents so I'm not sure why some people feel the need to blindly follow their advice.

Don't get me wrong, doctors and nurses have a very important place. They're just not the end all be all about nutrition. Ask questions.....do research. This site is GREAT for opening eyes and gaining many different perspectives. Use it to your advantage.

Minnie - posted on 05/28/2011

7,076

9

788

Adelaide weighs a bit less than Brianna. 10.5 kg. 2 1/2 years old.

Thank you about the name. I always tell her we named her after the old lady in her favorite movie, The Aristocats LOL.

Tara - posted on 05/28/2011

2,567

14

114

Exactly Mel, "much like my family and my husbands when we were babies"

Genetics plays such a huge role in the size of your children.

None of my kids weighed even 9kg (that's about 20 lbs I think) at their 12 month check up.

Riley is 18 months old and only weighs 19 lbs. All my kids were small, all were little, all were light weights.

I'm 5 feet, weigh in at about 120 when my weight is normal. My ex is also on the smaller than average size as is my current partner. I would be freaked right out if I had a BIG baby.

My older two boys have more than caught up, although small as toddlers and babies and children, my almost 18 year old is 6 feet, 170lbs and strong and healthy.

My 15 year old is now 6 feet 2 inches tall and expected to grow another 2 inches (got his height from my dad I think!) he weighs 165 and is strong and healthy. He also didn't eat much solid food until he was almost 2.

My oldest daughter is now 11 she was 20 pounds at her 2 year check up. She is healthy, strong and agile. She is very athletic and lean. Excellent muscle tone and strength for a kid her age.

If a baby is receiving adequate nutrition through formula or breastmilk, their size will be determined by their genes. Small babies will be small babies if left to nourish themselves as they see fit. (with the exception of FTT babies) and there is nothing wrong with that. Larger people will have larger babies not because they feed them more or better, but because their genetics tell that baby's metabolism to process things differently, genetics dictate body frame, whether you are an ectomorph or a mesomorph or endomorph and then take in the food amounts etc required to reach that genetically designed body type. Only messing with nature can change those outcomes.

If you have an ectomorph body type and so does your husband and you have a small lean, lightweight baby and try to "bulk" him up with high fat, high calorie foods, you will be working against his own genetic coding.

Small people make small babies, larger people make larger babies. That is a good rule of thumb. Most doctors take genetics into account when assessing whether a baby is small because of a illness or other problem or whether they are just small and healthy.

edited to add "at their 12 month check up" to the 3rd paragraph.

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

oh I am glad for them on that side of things! I have always been able to eat whatever I want to, I may be untoned but Ive been the same weight since I was 11 if not slightly less now. Brianna has been in the same bottoms for at least the past 2 yrs because she has no waist. I do think they are gorgeous petite. Paige was born so much bigger I expected her to become a bigger baby but it didnt happen. My mother had to ff me because I was small and coudlnt gain weight on breast milk. I always personally thought Paige was pretty perfect how she was but everyone always says oh she's so small such and suchs baby is 3 months younger and 3kg bigger etc. Im ok with it. The only thing I find hard is the worry of FTT and stressing at every weight check that they might not have gained enough. Miss Brianna is 11kg now, her sister is catching up :)



I had to photo copy all my records from my childhood to show briannas doctors that I was actually the same weight for them to believe me even then everything was a push, her dietician said oh she's supposed to be 12 kg by the time she hits 12 months old going by how big she was born - shes not even 12 kg now at 3 yrs old! Love the name Adelaide btw its gorgeous

Minnie - posted on 05/28/2011

7,076

9

788

in some ways I hate having kids who are born to be small because it seems no matter what they eat or drink they dont get bigger much like my family and my husbands when we were babies

I just did the conversions and Adelaide weighed in at 7 kg at 10 months. Less than your daughter. And she's perfectly happy and healthy. She's thin because she's meant to be thin. Perhaps enjoy your daughters' weights for what they are and know that they too will enjoy their awesome metabolisms because they'll be able to down a pizza as teenagers and not gain an ounce?

My five year old has gained one whole pound since last year. We used to spazz about her weight at around six months because the doctors and nurses did (they wanted to label her FTT) but you know what? Even after weaning, her growth has not changed, because it is normal for her.

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

I fed my bub on my lap alot when we were ok since she couldnt sit when she was 7 months she was fed in a walker while my inlaws took care of her for 8 days, but I try to be fairly strict on high chair thing now. If she wont eat what I give her, I will give her something else. If she doesn;t eat enough for her meal which is very rare then I will give her, something between meals like a piece of fruit. She's petite shes 8.8kg but not as petite as her sister who was 5 or 6kg at this age, in some ways I hate having kids who are born to be small because it seems no matter what they eat or drink they dont get bigger much like my family and my husbands when we were babies

Minnie - posted on 05/28/2011

7,076

9

788

Well our 'trying' wasn't sitting Adelaide in a seat with her own meal- because it wasn't a huge deal for us. We did our research and knew that the research was on our side that she would have adequate iron levels until at least nine months.



So what we did was her place at the dinner table was in my lap. I never offered her food. She chose to nurse mostly. At ten months she began grabbing the food off my plate and eating it. It was that easy. But still, she only consumed about a mouthful of table food per day until around 19 months. Definitely not enough solids to make any sort of nutritional difference. She basically lived nearly entirely off of my milk until half way through her second year.

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

I probably wouldnt be trying every single day because Id fear it would create oral aversions, but yeah thats just me. Your right it probably woudlnt hurt I just wouldnt want to risk it, once or twice a week would be enough for me. I feel so blessed to have a baby that eats so much and all the right foods

Jodi - posted on 05/28/2011

3,562

36

3907

I think trying every day when they are clearly not ready is a bit over the top. But each to their own. It's not going to hurt them if someone chooses to try. As long as they don't force it.

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

hey laura, no Ive stated on many occasions that you dont make your child eat if they dont want to, so I cant see that, but I do encourage what we are encouraged at least here which is to try every week or so, but in the info Ive just gotten I think it said to try every day. I wasnt going to write anymore on this one because Im kind of tired of it, but just thought Id clear that up again

Merry - posted on 05/28/2011

9,274

169

263

Mel, idk if you put these facts together, but when you say its dangerous to wait past 6 months, we hear 'you put your child in danger because you didn't make them eat solids when they didn't want to' now I KNOW you don't mean to attack anyone, but do you see how this feels like an attack from our side? We watched our kids, tried to figure out their needs, and encouraged them at their own pace. We can't accept that we were putting them in danger because we saw them then, and see them now and know they are fine!

Sorry for speaking for everyone else, hope didn't misrepresent anyone......

Josia - posted on 05/28/2011

28

23

0

Mine was ready at three and a bit but i didn't start him on solids until four months. Yes i agree watch for readiness. Mine was reaching out and trying to grab and eating food and was copying people chewing. He was also drooling when people would eat. He is nine months now and he eats pretty much everything. Never had any problems. My eldest wasn't ready until six months. It just depends on each child. They let you know when they are ready.

[deleted account]

Mel, I don't think old-fashioned" has anything to do with it. I think clinic sisters/child health nurses should be keeping up with current research as a matter of professional development; but I also think we, as mothers, should take some responsibilty for our babies. I've been round long enough to know that you take advice with a pinch of salt, and use your common sense. I've never been one to say "yes, sir, no sir, three bags full sir" to any professional, although I always respect their opinion and their knowledge. Any professional worth their salt knows that whatever accepted wisdom may say, individual cases require individual advice.

Mel, I fully understand that your babies had issues that meant that their needs were different from the needs of babies without those issues.

I don't think anyone here has just left the issue of solids - those whose babies weren't ready kept offering. In my case, I certainly didn't offer solids every day, because I didn't think it was necessary.

As I said, my kids didn't have solids until past 12 months and they're fine!

Mel - posted on 05/28/2011

5,539

58

228

Cassie and Kathy - I think thats a major difference of opinion on whats old fashioned and what isnt. My child health nurse thought the ladies on here might be old fashioned in thinking delayed solids is ok, so I think it just seems everyone has different opnions from what they are told themselves. lot of people say thier kids weren ready at 6 months which is fine, no one is saying force your baby to eat but what is recceomended, at least where Im from is try agian every day or so, if they wont eat fine but at least you are trying , dont just leave it is all Im saying

[deleted account]

My son is 8.5 months and he doesn't eat very much, still mostly breastfed. I'm fine with this.

But what do you ladies think about iron? I live abroad in Europe and my ped hasn't mentioned it once. There's no routine iron check at all. But in the US, it seems like a huge concern.

[deleted account]

I think most new mums are almost paranoid about introducing solids. I know I was. Back then (30 years ago) there was not much advice, only directions - almost along the lines of "you MUST' introduce solids by 4-6 months, I think it was.



What saved me was my family doctor, who had not only lots of knowledge, but more importantly, years of experience when it comes to bringing up kids. So, he had book-learning PLUS common sense. He was the one who said, ""Don't worry, she'll get round to it!" when I came crying to him saying "my baby won't eatI" My clinic sister, unfortunately, had obviously done her training years before and wasn't willing to admit of any flexibility at all.



Something else that helped my was the fact that I loved food (I still do!) I love the differfent tastes, the different experiences, the different textures. It dawned on me one day that if I was too regimented about introducing food, I would run the risk of my child missing out on the fascinating journey that food is. So I decided to leave it to the person herself (ie my baby), at the same time giving her opportunities to keep trying. It was good with my first, so I repeated this process with my second and third daughters.



It worked. They all LOVE food. They're not picky and will try anything. Always have been that way. Note: it worked for me and my kids, not saying it's the way to go for all kids.



I've also noticed, since my daughter had her babies, that most clinic sisters/child health nurses are keen to keep their knowledge up by regular professional development classes and courses, so they remain au fait with current research. This is a far cry from when I was a new mum!



So, all-in-all, I would never try to give a one-size-fits -all recommendation for introducing solids. Guidelines, yes, but with plenty of room for individual variations.



Kids mature at diverse rates. They are ready for things at different times. And families vary and do things in unique ways.



On this forum, we've had babies/toddlers who were ready for solids at a whole range of ages, and they all turned out OK.That's the way it is, and vive la différence.

Cassie - posted on 05/27/2011

0

0

182

Lisa, I think you and I were exactly the same in regards to solids with our girls. I stressed every mealtime with my first from the time she was 5 months old. She was NOT ready for solids in any way but I believed (from what I was told by drs and friends and family) that she needed the food.. It was a daily battle and a huge stressor. She's now a very picky eater... I let Emma decide when she was ready for solids, which happened to be just before she turned 10 months. She's only 11 months now but loves trying new foods and having a messy, food-covered tray, face and hands! She doesn't eat a lot but she loves what she does eat. :)

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

7,076

9

788

I guarantee I stressed and stressed over my first, Mel! Ugh mealtimes were horrid.

So easy-breezy with my second. Happy all around- because I just let go.

Mel - posted on 05/27/2011

5,539

58

228

I do understand everyone has different views....I just wanted to try and back myself up a little this is all. You've accomplished making me less stressed I still believe a baby needs solids at 6 months however if I happen to ever have a baby who wasnt ready I probably wont sit there stressing so much about them not getting what they need

Minnie - posted on 05/27/2011

7,076

9

788

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.

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