Child Mag article on starting solids

Hi All-

My sister called me with information that she read in Child Magazine (i
don't subscribe). Basically the jist of the article was that solids should
not be introduced before 4 months and even thought the new recommendation
was 6 months there have been studies that babies who start solids after 6
months are at higher risk for health problems. (how was that for a run on
sentence?)

Anyway, I'm curious if anyone else read this or if anyone has any ideas. We
were planning on delaying solids until 6 1/2- 7 months but if that is bad I
want to know...

Thanks,
Molly

Molly Ging wrote:
there have been studies that babies
who start solids after 6 months are at higher risk for health
problems.

That would be one study, involving kids at high risk for juvenile diabetes.
They had a higher risk of diabetes if their parents didn't offer rice cereal
(assumed to be the first solid) before they were 7 months old. A baby who
started rice cereal at 6 months, 29 days counted as a 6 month old baby. No
idea how that applies to a baby with no risk factors for juvenile diabetes,
or a baby who self-delays (parent offers and baby is uninterested).

We were planning on delaying solids until 6 1/2- 7 months but
if that is bad I want to know...

It's probably not necessary to delay past 6 months. My personal theory is
that older babies (who had never been offered solids) were more likely to
gobble down a huge amount of cereal right off the bat, and that it's more
beneficial to have a limited amount until the baby's body gets used to it.
An alternative explanation would be that rice cereal is nutritionally
useless, and you'd be better off skipping it altogether.

Phoebe
--
yahoo address is unread; substitute mailbolt

Molly Ging wrote:
Hi All-

My sister called me with information that she read in Child Magazine (i
don't subscribe). Basically the jist of the article was that solids should
not be introduced before 4 months and even thought the new recommendation
was 6 months there have been studies that babies who start solids after 6
months are at higher risk for health problems. (how was that for a run on
sentence?)

Our pediatrician said that delaying past 6 months was a good way to try
to avoid allergies. Weird! I wonder which study is the more reliable?

Mary S.
mom to the Sproutkin, 22 months

Molly Ging wrote:
there have been studies that babies
who start solids after 6 months are at higher risk for health
problems.

"Phoebe & Allyson" wrote
It's probably not necessary to delay past 6 months. My personal theory is
that older babies (who had never been offered solids) were more likely to
gobble down a huge amount of cereal right off the bat, and that it's more
beneficial to have a limited amount until the baby's body gets used to it.

I would second that theory. DD wasn't willing to eat baby food (i.e. mush)
and we didn't figure out that it was the texture until she was 8 mths. She's
now having small tummy problems because she eats everything in sight. IOW,
she went from eating nothing but my milk to eating about 1/2 cup of food
three times daily in two weeks and her tummy's still catching up. OTOH,
she's much happier now and loves food. Her latest favorite is gefilte fish
and broccoli. OY!
--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03

Mary wrote in message ...
Molly Ging wrote:
Hi All-

My sister called me with information that she read in Child Magazine (i
don't subscribe). Basically the jist of the article was that solids should
not be introduced before 4 months and even thought the new recommendation
was 6 months there have been studies that babies who start solids after 6
months are at higher risk for health problems. (how was that for a run on
sentence?)

Our pediatrician said that delaying past 6 months was a good way to try
to avoid allergies. Weird! I wonder which study is the more reliable?

so what do you do with babies who just arnt interested in solids, even
at 7 mths? feeding the mooo before now would have been even more of a
waste of time with a tounge thrust reflex, the only reason i
persevere is in case this tassting window theory is correct

teapot

Phoebe & Allyson writes:
: Molly Ging wrote:
: there have been studies that babies
: who start solids after 6 months are at higher risk for health
: problems.

: That would be one study, involving kids at high risk for juvenile diabetes.
: They had a higher risk of diabetes if their parents didn't offer rice cereal
: (assumed to be the first solid) before they were 7 months old. A baby who
: started rice cereal at 6 months, 29 days counted as a 6 month old baby. No
: idea how that applies to a baby with no risk factors for juvenile diabetes,
: or a baby who self-delays (parent offers and baby is uninterested).

Pheobe, this is interesting. Did the study distinguish between breastfed
or forumla fed babies. Since we know that formula feeding increases the
incidence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, I think this would be
relevant.

Larry

so what do you do with babies who just arnt interested in solids, even
at 7 mths? feeding the mooo before now would have been even more of a
waste of time with a tounge thrust reflex, the only reason i
persevere is in case this tassting window theory is correct

That was us -- no interest *at all* until somewhere between 13 and 16
months. I was worried about the tasting window, too, but oddly enough
her first success food was pesto, and she loves things like sundried
tomato paste, olives, salad dressing, and yogurt, as well as the usual
toddler fare like pasta and cheese and Cheerios and so forth. Cheerios
were an early winner for us, too (early meaning she'd eat 2-3 a day at
12 months). She's picky about new flavors, and her food repertoire is
still pretty limited, but it's not as bad as I feared wrt the flavor
window. Not much you can do about it anyway -- if they won't, they won't.

No allergies, despite major family history.

Mary S.
mom to the Sproutkin, 22 months

but oddly enough
her first success food was pesto, and she loves things like sundried
tomato paste, olives, salad dressing, and yogurt,


Hmmm... did you eat a lot of middle-eastern food when you were preg?? LOL!

molly

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:20:12 -0500, "Molly Ging"
wrote:

but oddly enough
her first success food was pesto, and she loves things like sundried
tomato paste, olives, salad dressing, and yogurt,


Hmmm... did you eat a lot of middle-eastern food when you were preg?? LOL!

Looks more like a south European diet than a Middle Eastern one!
--
Linz
YB: 12 weeks, around 13lbs

Larry McMahan wrote:
That would be one study, involving kids at high risk for juvenile
diabetes. They had a higher risk of diabetes if their parents didn't
offer rice cereal (assumed to be the first solid) before they were 7
months old. A baby who started rice cereal at 6 months, 29 days
counted as a 6 month old baby. No idea how that applies to a baby
with no risk factors for juvenile diabetes, or a baby who
self-delays (parent offers and baby is uninterested).

Pheobe, this is interesting. Did the study distinguish between
breastfed or forumla fed babies. Since we know that formula feeding
increases the incidence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, I think
this would be relevant.

I assume they controlled for it, but all I got was the Science News
synopsis. Which was a lot better than the paragraph in the newspaper, which
made it sound like if you weren't feeding by 4 months, your baby was doomed
for life.

Phoebe

--
yahoo address is unread; substitute mailbolt