IS BABY FEEDING OK?

Hi,
My baby boy is six months old, he is 15 ponds.he is breastfeeding
child, but i'm sure how much he takes breastmilk, as i'm not giving
him bottle. i tried my best to give him atleast one bottle but he
don't know how to suck it so he is just taking breastmilk according to
his wish....now i'm giving him 5-6Tbs rice cereales in powder
milk....and breastmilk ...that's it in a day. from when should i start
another things like baby food and juices, because he will surely
decerease the amount of milk with another things.and is there any
special tonics for babies for good health.
am i doing ok? thanks for reply.
cheers

javalearner wrote:
Hi,
My baby boy is six months old, he is 15 ponds.

OK, but realize that stating "he's 15 pounds" means nothing without a
context. Saying something like, "he was born at 6lbs 5oz and is now 15lbs"
might mean something.

now i'm giving him 5-6Tbs rice cereales in powder
milk....

Why are you using powdered milk? You mean just plain powdered milk, or
formula? I would not use powdered milk, as a 6-month-old is too young for
cow's milk products. Breastmilk or water would be much better to mix in
cereal.

from when should i
start another things like baby food and juices,

You can start baby fruits and vegetables any time, one every few days so if
there's a reaction you'll know what caused it. Cereal is not even necessary
as a first food; I'd actually be more inclined to start with vegetables or
mashed banana. Avocado is a really good first food as it's got lots of the
good kind of fat.

Juice is unnecessary. I consider juice a treat. It's little more than sugar
water and it doesn't have any place in the diet of a child under one year.

and is there
any special tonics for babies for good health.

No. You mean like vitamin supplements? They aren't necessary for a breastfed
baby. Don't assume that he will dramatically decrease the amount he nurses.
Solid food in the first year is meant to be about learning, not as a
significant source of nutrition.

am i doing ok?

Sounds like it to me, although I would seriously rethink using powdered milk
to mix in cereal.

It's really not necessary to know how many ounces of breastmilk he's getting
as long as he has plenty of wet diapers.

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

"iphigenia" wrote in message
...
(snip)
You can start baby fruits and vegetables any time, one every few days so
if
there's a reaction you'll know what caused it. Cereal is not even
necessary
as a first food; I'd actually be more inclined to start with vegetables or
mashed banana. Avocado is a really good first food as it's got lots of the
good kind of fat.

The one benefit of baby cereals is that they provide iron, something which I
have read breastfed babies start needing around 6 months - some earlier some
later, but around then.

My DS *loves* avocado - great and easy baby food to make!

I would also reconsider using powdered milk - if it's powdered formula,
that's okay, but babies arent' supposed to get cow's milk before 1 year old.

Patty

"iphigenia" wrote in message
...
Patty Reali wrote:

The one benefit of baby cereals is that they provide iron, something
which I have read breastfed babies start needing around 6 months -
some earlier some later, but around then.

Actually, it's this: Babies are born with enough iron stored up to last
them
for about six months. After that, they start needing to get it from their
diet. Fortunately, breastmilk has iron. It's not a whole lot (a fact that
formula mfrs like to exploit...), but it's very well absorbed, so there
doesn't *need* to be a lot. Especially since excess iron is not benign.


I wanted to ask this then forgot. Now is a good opportunity. If mom has
borderline iron herself, is it beneficial to baby for mom to take a
supplement?

Formula-fed babies do tend to need the extra iron contained in cereal.
Formula's got a lot of iron packed into it, but not very much is absorbed.
Basically, FF babies get bombarded with a whole lot of iron, between
formula
and cereal, in the hope that enough of it gets absorbed.

So while cereal for iron is a very valid argument for FF babies, it's
really
not generally applicable to breastfed babies. It's another instance in
which
FF as the cultural norm has misinformed us as to what BF babies need.

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

Stephanie and Tim wrote:

I wanted to ask this then forgot. Now is a good opportunity. If mom
has borderline iron herself, is it beneficial to baby for mom to
take a supplement?


It wouldn't hurt to get the baby finger-pricked. But generally speaking,
Nature doesn't care that much about the mother. You're biologically
important only insofar as you need to stay alive to protect your offspring.
So your body will make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is complete,
then whatever's left over is what you live on. That's why women in
famine-stricken countries can breastfeed. Mostly, good nutrition will help
the mother feel well. However, if the mother is severely lacking in a
nutrient, there may not be enough of that nutrient for it to be sufficiently
represented in milk. Since anemia is really not good for developing children
to have, it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep track of the nursling of an
anemic mother's iron levels. I don't believe in just giving iron drops
without checking blood levels, since too *much* iron is also dangerous - but
paying attention to the child's blood iron is a good idea.

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

"iphigenia" wrote in message
...
Stephanie and Tim wrote:

I wanted to ask this then forgot. Now is a good opportunity. If mom
has borderline iron herself, is it beneficial to baby for mom to
take a supplement?


It wouldn't hurt to get the baby finger-pricked. But generally speaking,
Nature doesn't care that much about the mother. You're biologically
important only insofar as you need to stay alive to protect your
offspring.

What I meant is the iron in the supplement that I would be giving to myself
going to get passed on to the baby in breatmilk.

So your body will make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is
complete,
then whatever's left over is what you live on. That's why women in
famine-stricken countries can breastfeed. Mostly, good nutrition will help
the mother feel well. However, if the mother is severely lacking in a
nutrient, there may not be enough of that nutrient for it to be
sufficiently
represented in milk. Since anemia is really not good for developing
children
to have, it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep track of the nursling of an
anemic mother's iron levels. I don't believe in just giving iron drops
without checking blood levels, since too *much* iron is also dangerous -
but
paying attention to the child's blood iron is a good idea.


Well I meant to give ME the iron supplements and then breastfeed under the
thought that the milk would have the right iron in it. I act like a filter
so to speak. I have not actually had the baby yet, but am notoriously
deficient.

S

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

iphigenia wrote in message
...
But generally speaking, Nature doesn't care that much about the
mother.
You're biologically important only insofar as you need to stay alive
to
protect your offspring. So your body will make sure that the
breastmilk
it manufactures is complete, then whatever's left over is what you
live on.
That's why women in famine-stricken countries can breastfeed. Mostly,
good nutrition will help the mother feel well. However, if the mother
is
severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient
for it to be sufficiently represented in milk.

I've wondered about this. The nutrients in breastmilk have to come from
somewhere. Your body can't make something out of nothing, to put into
your milk. So I'm confused between where you said "So your body will
make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is complete, then
whatever's left over is what you live on." and "However, if the mother
is severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient for it to be sufficiently represented in milk."

I've seen it said here countless times that breastmilk is always the
perfect food for an infant, but I'm not sure it is. It's still a long
way better than any formula, of course. I just think there is a lot of
middle ground between it always being "perfect", and the mother lacking
a nutrient to the point that the baby doesn't get enough. IOW I think
that breastfeeding moms do need to watch their own diet more carefully
than might otherwise be assumed from statements sometimes seen here.

For example I don't eat any citrus, and have to consciously see to it
that I either eat foods with vitamin C in them, or supplement. Vitamin
C needs to be replenished daily, so if I don't have vitamin C in my
body, it's not going to be in my breastmilk either.

Another example, at my last midwife appointment, she gave me a copy of a
report that says women in the US have much lower levels of DHA fat in
their bodies, and in their breastmilk, than women in other countries
where seafood is a larger part of the diet. DHA is very important to
eye and brain development, in the third trimester and during
breastfeeding. There has been such a public health push in the US over
the last 50 years or so on how bad cholesterol and fat are, that people
don't eat eggs and organ meats anywhere near as much as they used to,
and many women avoid fish now due to mercury scares, so we have ended up
lacking in this nutrient. There could be plenty of other examples that
we don't currently know about.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 3 mo.
And a boy, EDD 4.Sept

Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.

Cheryl S. wrote:

I've wondered about this. The nutrients in breastmilk have to come
from somewhere. Your body can't make something out of nothing, to
put into your milk. So I'm confused between where you said "So your
body will make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is complete,
then whatever's left over is what you live on." and "However, if the
mother is severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of
that nutrient for it to be sufficiently represented in milk."

I don't see the conflict between those two statements. The first statement
is what normally happens, the second is what might happen in the case of
extreme deficiency.

--
iphigenia
www.tristyn.net

"Cheryl S." wrote in message
...
iphigenia wrote in message
...
But generally speaking, Nature doesn't care that much about the
mother.
You're biologically important only insofar as you need to stay alive
to
protect your offspring. So your body will make sure that the
breastmilk
it manufactures is complete, then whatever's left over is what you
live on.
That's why women in famine-stricken countries can breastfeed. Mostly,
good nutrition will help the mother feel well. However, if the mother
is
severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient
for it to be sufficiently represented in milk.

I've wondered about this. The nutrients in breastmilk have to come from
somewhere. Your body can't make something out of nothing, to put into
your milk. So I'm confused between where you said "So your body will
make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is complete, then
whatever's left over is what you live on." and "However, if the mother
is severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient for it to be sufficiently represented in milk."

I've seen it said here countless times that breastmilk is always the
perfect food for an infant, but I'm not sure it is. It's still a long
way better than any formula, of course. I just think there is a lot of
middle ground between it always being "perfect", and the mother lacking
a nutrient to the point that the baby doesn't get enough. IOW I think
that breastfeeding moms do need to watch their own diet more carefully
than might otherwise be assumed from statements sometimes seen here.

For example I don't eat any citrus, and have to consciously see to it
that I either eat foods with vitamin C in them, or supplement. Vitamin
C needs to be replenished daily, so if I don't have vitamin C in my
body, it's not going to be in my breastmilk either.

Another example, at my last midwife appointment, she gave me a copy of a
report that says women in the US have much lower levels of DHA fat in
their bodies, and in their breastmilk, than women in other countries
where seafood is a larger part of the diet. DHA is very important to
eye and brain development, in the third trimester and during
breastfeeding. There has been such a public health push in the US over
the last 50 years or so on how bad cholesterol and fat are, that people
don't eat eggs and organ meats anywhere near as much as they used to,
and many women avoid fish now due to mercury scares, so we have ended up
lacking in this nutrient. There could be plenty of other examples that
we don't currently know about.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 3 mo.
And a boy, EDD 4.Sept

Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.



This sums up my thoughts more or less exactly.

S

Yeah, I am very spotty on the details, but I heard a TV report that
vegans who didn't take a nutrient (can't remember which nutrient) had
developmental delays in their bf babies. IMHO moderation in
everything including moderation will probably keep the diet rounded
enough.

KC



"Cheryl S." wrote in message ...
iphigenia wrote in message
...
But generally speaking, Nature doesn't care that much about the
mother.
You're biologically important only insofar as you need to stay alive
to
protect your offspring. So your body will make sure that the
breastmilk
it manufactures is complete, then whatever's left over is what you
live on.
That's why women in famine-stricken countries can breastfeed. Mostly,
good nutrition will help the mother feel well. However, if the mother
is
severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient
for it to be sufficiently represented in milk.

I've wondered about this. The nutrients in breastmilk have to come from
somewhere. Your body can't make something out of nothing, to put into
your milk. So I'm confused between where you said "So your body will
make sure that the breastmilk it manufactures is complete, then
whatever's left over is what you live on." and "However, if the mother
is severely lacking in a nutrient, there may not be enough of that
nutrient for it to be sufficiently represented in milk."

I've seen it said here countless times that breastmilk is always the
perfect food for an infant, but I'm not sure it is. It's still a long
way better than any formula, of course. I just think there is a lot of
middle ground between it always being "perfect", and the mother lacking
a nutrient to the point that the baby doesn't get enough. IOW I think
that breastfeeding moms do need to watch their own diet more carefully
than might otherwise be assumed from statements sometimes seen here.

For example I don't eat any citrus, and have to consciously see to it
that I either eat foods with vitamin C in them, or supplement. Vitamin
C needs to be replenished daily, so if I don't have vitamin C in my
body, it's not going to be in my breastmilk either.

Another example, at my last midwife appointment, she gave me a copy of a
report that says women in the US have much lower levels of DHA fat in
their bodies, and in their breastmilk, than women in other countries
where seafood is a larger part of the diet. DHA is very important to
eye and brain development, in the third trimester and during
breastfeeding. There has been such a public health push in the US over
the last 50 years or so on how bad cholesterol and fat are, that people
don't eat eggs and organ meats anywhere near as much as they used to,
and many women avoid fish now due to mercury scares, so we have ended up
lacking in this nutrient. There could be plenty of other examples that
we don't currently know about.