Starting Solids?

[Courtniko]

Yeah, I started at 6 months with DD, and will probably start around the same time with DS, depending on signs of readyness.

[richaroodo]

I was just talking with DH about this last night. With S we didn't start until right before 6 months but R is always hungry and hardly seems satisfied. I'm planning on talking with the pediatrician at his appointment next week to get her opinion.

[wineallthetime]

I also started at 6 months with my son, and plan to do the same with L as long as she seems ready!

[renbee]

Jul 28, 2016 9:48:37 GMT -5 @ismellbooks said:

Jul 28, 2016 9:47:02 GMT -5 heartbot said:

DD isn't that old, and when she was a baby, the pedi recommended introducing solids at 4 months and most of the people I knew with babies did at that time as well. Is that not a thing anymore?

It's my understanding the recommendation is 4-6 months, with 6 being the most ideal — along with the other developmental signs they're ready: sitting up, pincer grasp, etc.

This. I think the recommendations have changed relatively recently. I have a friend whose son was ready at 4 months though and did well with it.

[jags8]

I've heard of some peds okaying rice cereal at 4 months. I don't plan on starting anything until 6 months. For one, I love breastfeeding. Secondly, I don't have any reason to rush into it. And third, breastmilk poops don't smell bad at all IMO, and I'm in no rush to start those nasty "real food" poops.

[jags8]

Oh yes, as others have mentioned, when you can start depends a lot on the baby's development. Six months is ideal for their digestive system. But they should be able to sit up w/o support, can grab and hold things, not push food out of his/her mouth immediately, can chew...

[Deleted]

We will casually start at 6 months. I'll more let her play with it than feed it to her so she won't really start getting a lot for another couple months after that. We started with avocado for DD1 and will do the same with LO.

I've read a lot about "waiting until the gut lining closes" which happens around 6 months. It's not a baby size thing, it's a developmental thing. The WHO and AAP have all updated their guidelines to say 6 months, not 4-6 months anymore.

ETA and when I say "developmental" I mean internally, in the organs. Not just stuff you can see outwardly like sitting up. I also have heard to start doing high allergen stuff earlier than later. I know DD1 had eggs at 9 months and peanut butter shortly thereafter.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2016 10:40:55 GMT -5 jags8 said:

And third, breastmilk poops don't smell bad at all IMO, and I'm in no rush to start those nasty "real food" poops.

We CD too so the diapers definitely get more difficult when we do food! I'm in no rush. DD1 is though, she can't hardly wait for LO to eat "real food"

[craftcrazymama]

Jul 28, 2016 9:47:02 GMT -5 heartbot said:

DD isn't that old, and when she was a baby, the pedi recommended introducing solids at 4 months and most of the people I knew with babies did at that time as well. Is that not a thing anymore?

I have heard that they have recently changed the recommendation to starting anytime from 4 months if baby is showing ready signs. I'll be looking for those with my wee guy. He's a big kid and so hungry and I don't know if I can keep up for long with just my supply. I'm thinking any time from 5 months really.

[scotty138]

We will start at or just after 6 months. I find EBF to be so much easier. CD is easier and less smelly without solids. With DS1 we waited until 6 months and did BLW. It worked out great for us and we will do the same thing again.

[Deleted]

heartbot, I get it. There is so much information. People have been feeding babies prior to 6 months for a long time without issue. But I don't see the harm in waiting and I take the info from WHO & AAP more than one doctor, we move too much to have a consistent family doctor to trust.

In the long run, for most kids, I'm sure it really doesn't matter if you start between 4-6 months.

[creepyeyeball]

We don't start solids until closer to a year. It's not really necessary and I'd really rather my baby fill up on breastmilk than the empty calories in a rice cereal or cheerios. Solids at this age are really just for practice, so we avoid to save time and mess. Starting around 10-11 months we let them start exploring real foods and then actively serve them with a meal at age 1. It works well for us.

The only one I started food early with was DS1. Everyone told me to start rice cereal at 4 months. I was eager and only had one kid, so I was willing to do it. They told me it would help him sleep and it had the opposite - he got terrible gas. DS1 also ended up with terrible food allergies. Thinking at the time was that delaying solids would help, so we did that with the others. Thinking has since changed on allergies to promote early introduction, but my anecdotal evidence has shown no allergies in my delayed kids and allergies in my early eater. Our doc supports my decision to wait.

Plus, cloth diapers are a whole new ballgame when they aren't EBF. Ewwww

[Deleted]

Also, I'll admit to typically leaning towards the crunchy side of things.

[minae01]

I'm in no rush. The pedi gave us the go ahead at her 4 mo appt, but we'll wait until closer to 6. I did that with the boys. I started with baby oatmeal and moved to veggie and fruit purees.

[creepyeyeball]

@east

More anecdotes, but I have done lots of research on leaky guts. I have Crohns Disease, which is highly hereditary and would do anything to avoid passing it to my children. I have been on the GAPS diet for three years to heal my own leaky gut and have been able to go off of my maintenance meds and remain in remission through a combo of the diet and a therapeutic dose of probiotics. A lot of my parenting decisions revolve around creating diverse gut flora for my kids - breastfeeding, homebirth, the use of natural cleansers, a less sterile environment, etc. I worry my kids may have inherited my leaky gut, so doing what I can to introduce good bacteria while not damaging an immature gut definitely plays in my decision to delay solids. I don't care if they say it's pseudoscience because I know what has and hasn't worked for me. I trust my gut (pun intended) on this issue.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2016 13:27:08 GMT -5 creepyeyeball said:

@east

More anecdotes, but I have done lots of research on leaky guts. I have Crohns Disease, which is highly hereditary and would do anything to avoid passing it to my children. I have been on the GAPS diet for three years to heal my own leaky gut and have been able to go off of my maintenance meds and remain in remission through a combo of the diet and a therapeutic dose of probiotics. A lot of my parenting decisions revolve around creating diverse gut flora for my kids - breastfeeding, homebirth, the use of natural cleansers, a less sterile environment, etc. I worry my kids may have inherited my leaky gut, so doing what I can to introduce good bacteria while not damaging an immature gut definitely plays in my decision to delay solids. I don't care if they say it's pseudoscience because I know what has and hasn't worked for me. I trust my gut (pun intended) on this issue.

Yep. My mom and I have lots of gut issues too so it is something I've thought a lot about.

[renbee]

Jul 28, 2016 14:11:52 GMT -5 heartbot said:

Jul 28, 2016 13:09:27 GMT -5 @east said:

heartbot , I get it. There is so much information. People have been feeding babies prior to 6 months for a long time without issue. But I don't see the harm in waiting and I take the info from WHO & AAP more than one doctor, we move too much to have a consistent family doctor to trust.

In the long run, for most kids, I'm sure it really doesn't matter if you start between 4-6 months.

I spent some time trying to dig up research on why the AAP recommendations changed. It seems to be two-fold:

1. The AAP wants to make it clear that they recommend exclusively breastfeeding for the first 6 months.
2. There was evidence that families who fed formula were more likely to introduce solids prior to 4 months, did not understand the physical milestones doctors had put forward, and that having 2 sets of recommendations (one for EBF parents and another for everyone else) was too confusing, so they decided to make one unified set of recommendations that would be a catch-all for the vast majority of babies who would definitely meet their physical milestones by 6 months.

There was no change in research that demonstrated there was increased risk introducing solid food between 4-6 months or that waiting until 6 months provided some additional protective benefit, apart from the benefits conferred specifically from EBFing. In fact, there appear to be some protective effects in terms of food allergies in introducing solids in the 4-6 month window. If you dig further into the AAP's recommendations, they all go back to physical milestones which may very well be achieved before 6 months.

The WHO's recommendation to delay introducing solid foods until 6 months is a global recommendation based on the fact that many places may have contaminated food and water sources, which could be particularly harmful to small infants. So their recommendation is tied specifically to the fact that EBFing for 6 months is the safest, healthiest way to feed babies anywhere, period.

I have a lot of thoughts on this. I know I've complained here before about medical organizations making overly conservative recommendations on the assumption that many people are not smart enough to distinguish nuance or detail, which to be fair, there is plenty of evidence to support. Still. Not being explicit that the change in the recommendations was due more to sociological than medical reasons allows non-scientific ideas to flourish in lay people, e.g. the virgin gut thing, which I'm reasonably certain came to be popularly accepted as gospel primarily because it sprang up right around the time the AAP changed their recommendations. People just assumed the two were related, when in fact, they were not.

Poverty also plays into this in a big way, and I'm not sure changing the recommendations addresses the fact that for many people making the decision to introduce solids prior to 4 months, they may not be able to access regular medical care, may be relying more on family/generational advice instead of doctors or current information because that is what is available to them, and also are making survival-based decisions where the source of calories is less critical than the cost of calories. Universal health care, guaranteed paid maternity leave for everyone, and a robust social safety net would go much further to addressing these issues than a change in recommendations to American pediatricians. But. I'm sure doctors see this as their best and only avenue to affect change, in the absence of more meaningful social and economic reform.

#science. I wish they would present the facts and let people make their own informed decisions. This reminds me of the CDC's recent campaign about women not even drinking while TTC. Why does this kind of blanket recommendation happen most often with things women would typically be deciding?

[Deleted]

"Whether or not you start solids at 4 months, 6 months, or somewhere in between is up to you and your baby. The research on this topic is still evolving, and either is a fine choice."

In the end... parenting is hard. We all make decisions and assuming that someone isn't educating themselves because they wait and EBF to 6 months is unnecessary. Feeding kids is a hot topic. LO will be 4 months old in 1 week and if I were going off milestones, she certainly isn't close to sitting unassisted with her chin up and I know DD1 wasn't sitting like that until she was just shy of 6 months (which I remember because we had just moved to Manila).

[creepyeyeball]

I say just like the BF vs FF debate, you do you. Or I guess feed your baby what and when you want. Obviously, some docs say 4-6 months is OK. Delaying doesn't cause any harm either. In other threads we've been talking a lot about mothering instincts and how important they are. I trust my instincts on this one, as we all should, with the input of our doctors also taken into consideration. We all do what works for us.

[wineallthetime]

Jul 28, 2016 13:07:49 GMT -5 buttercup said:

We did a couple months of purees and then gradually moved to chunkier foods she fed herself. Worked for us. Stinky poop wasn't that big of a deal.

All this, but I don't have a sense of smell so I can't speak to the stinky diapers.

[scotty138]

To be clear, I don't have any opinions about what other people want to do. We just prefer to wait because it is easier for us and it worked well to wait last time. No judgment.

[Deleted]

We did spices with DD1s food shortly after testing out a bunch of the basics so we knew she didn't have any allergies. She is pretty great at being willing to try things and I think being exposed to lots of flavors early on helped.

wholesomebabyfood.momtastic.com/tipspices.htm - this has a list of spices and what to pair each with

[creepyeyeball]

Jul 29, 2016 8:22:36 GMT -5 kendylouwho said:

I just recently heard about not introducing honey until later. Is that because it's an allergen? I've never heard of anyone being allergic to honey.

Honey can contain botulism spores that can harm infants. It isn't a threat when they are older.

[Courtniko]

Jul 29, 2016 8:22:36 GMT -5 kendylouwho said:

I just recently heard about not introducing honey until later. Is that because it's an allergen? I've never heard of anyone being allergic to honey.

Honey can have Botulism spores in it, which is dangerous for infants

[Courtniko]

Jul 29, 2016 8:26:27 GMT -5 creepyeyeball said:

Jul 29, 2016 8:22:36 GMT -5 kendylouwho said:

I just recently heard about not introducing honey until later. Is that because it's an allergen? I've never heard of anyone being allergic to honey.

Honey can contain botulism spores that can harm infants. It isn't a threat when they are older.

You beat me to it!

[creepyeyeball]

Question out of curiousity - not trying to debate - but is feeding infants fun for the people who are introducing earlier, particularly STMs?

I hate it. It's messy and takes time away from other things I could be doing. I enjoyed it with #1 because I had the time to do it, but now it would just be another couple things to add to my daily to-do list, between making the food, spending thirty minutes watching him push it out of his mouth with his tongue, and doing the extra laundry the mess causes. I guess my mothering philosophy, basically out of necessity/survival now, is to only do something if it is fun and/or absolutely necessary. Since solids at this age, and really until age one, aren't medically necessary, I'm not doing it.

But if it were fun for me I might change my mind. Do you guys enjoy it?

[jags8]

creepyeyeball even though I don't plan on starting solids til 6 months, I'm very much looking forward to it! My mom has a two huge gardens and offered to help make purées next month (to freeze for October). I am excited to watch DS get excited or disgusted by different foods

[renbee]

creepyeyeball I'm excited to watch DS try different foods. Also, breastfeeding didn't really work out for me despite trying pretty much everything, so we are on formula. I feel like solids will be easier (and definitely cheaper!) than formula.

[Deleted]

I thought the beginning felt more tedious but that it was fun after the first month or so, once we had gone through testing things with the 3 day wait. I know DD1 is going to love helping feed LO though so it is even more exciting this time. We only gave food once a day for the first few months and I'll probably do it pre bath, it'll help entertain DD1 before DH gets home.

[creepyeyeball]

Jul 29, 2016 12:02:59 GMT -5 buttercup said:

creepyeyeball

Since solids at this age, and really until age one, aren't medically necessary, I'm not doing it.

The WHO guidance on complementary feeding mentions the importance of introducing solids at six months for proper nutrition. AAP also discusses this because breast milk doesn't contain adequate iron and other nutrients to support an older infant growth. D's hematologist mentioned his iron was low and this was a normal dip until he starts solids. You do what you do with your pediatrician support for your situation, but I wouldn't classify solids as not medically necessary for the general population.

I know everyone is different, but the majority of baby foods are not high in iron. Feeding an infant mashed peas isn't going to really increase iron levels more than drinking BM instead. Sure, people feed their kids iron-fortified grains at that point, but plant-based non-heme iron is not absorbed well by the body and some research shows that it actually leaches iron from pur bodies when not properly prepared. Grains need to be soaked prior to eating in order for the nutrients to be properly absorbed. Most people don't begin meats and other heme iron sources until later anyways.

Of course, iron levels in milk completely depend on the diet and health of the mother. I would say I'm fine due to my weekly intake of wild game and organ meat





ETA - on my phone and can't link, but the AAP has published studies saying that while iron levels decline around 9 months it is not enough in their opinion to cause any medical concern, especially in infants who started life with normal iron levels from being full-term and having delayed cord clamping. They say more research needs done. Two generations ago they were feeding CARO syrup and carnation milk to infants. These guidelines seem to change every decade. Science evolves. We all just need to follow our instincts.