Ready to eat?

Beth Kevles wrote:
Hi --

I think of introducing solids as being a bit like playing roulette.

True. But so are a lot of other things in parenthood and in life. With
Jamie, I was quite obsessed with doing things The Right Way, and,
looking back, I think it made me lose perspective. ;-)

[...]
The reason to delay solids past 6 months is that the typical baby's gut
is immature, "leaky", younger than that. So the odds of a bad reaction
are highter when the baby is smaller.

Unless there are some recent studies that I've missed (possible),
there's no actual evidence that delaying past four months is of any
benefit here. When a study compared four months and six months as ages
to introduce anything other than breastmilk, the risk of proved
reactions to foods was found to be no different for the babies who had
waited to six months compared to the babies fed at four months. (Of
course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that the risk might exist
yet be too small to show up in the study, but there are limits to what
I'm prepared to worry about. ;-) )

[...]
The reason to delay the deadliest allergens (tree nuts, peanuts,
shellfish) until 1-3 YEARS of age is that you want your baby to be able
to TELL you about early reaction signs (tickly or itchy throat, for
example) while there's still time to get to a hospital before
anaphylaxis sets in.

That makes sense. ;-)

For the statistical baby, it's wise to follow all the recommendations
about delaying this or that solid, and about waiting 3-4 days after
introducing one solid before introducing another. (That helps you
figure out WHICH solid is causing the eczema, sniffles, whatever.) But
for the actual baby in front of you... well, you do what you think is
best.

Great way to put it!


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

stasya wrote:

I'm not too terribly worried honestly. All those, 'try this food for a
week before you try something else new" ? Pft.

Heh. I like that attitude. ;-)


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Beth Kevles wrote:
Hi --

I think of introducing solids as being a bit like playing roulette.

True. But so are a lot of other things in parenthood and in life. With
Jamie, I was quite obsessed with doing things The Right Way, and,
looking back, I think it made me lose perspective. ;-)

[...]
The reason to delay solids past 6 months is that the typical baby's
gut is immature, "leaky", younger than that. So the odds of a bad
reaction are highter when the baby is smaller.

Unless there are some recent studies that I've missed (possible),
there's no actual evidence that delaying past four months is of any
benefit here. When a study compared four months and six months as
ages to introduce anything other than breastmilk, the risk of proved
reactions to foods was found to be no different for the babies who had
waited to six months compared to the babies fed at four months. (Of
course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that the risk might
exist yet be too small to show up in the study, but there are limits
to what I'm prepared to worry about. ;-) )

Out of interest, was the study comparing breast-fed 4 and 6 month olds or
formula-fed 4 and 6 month olds? I have heard (but of course, can't remember
where) that the initial feeding type makes a difference when it comes to
starting solids but this may have been disproved.

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Unless there are some recent studies that I've missed (possible),
there's no actual evidence that delaying past four months is of any
benefit here.

One very recent study:

Pediatrics 2006;117;425-432
Caroline J. Chantry, Cynthia R. Howard and Peggy Auinger
Full Breastfeeding Duration and Associated Decrease in Respiratory Tract
Infection in US Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/117/2/425

Lara

"Lara" wrote:
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Unless there are some recent studies that I've missed (possible),
there's no actual evidence that delaying past four months is of any
benefit here.

One very recent study:

Pediatrics 2006;117;425-432
Caroline J. Chantry, Cynthia R. Howard and Peggy Auinger
Full Breastfeeding Duration and Associated Decrease in Respiratory Tract
Infection in US Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/117/2/425

Lara

Lara, thank you for posting that!!!

-Patty, mom of 1+2

Linz wrote:
Sarah Vaughan wrote:
Beth Kevles wrote:
Hi --

I think of introducing solids as being a bit like playing roulette.
True. But so are a lot of other things in parenthood and in life. With
Jamie, I was quite obsessed with doing things The Right Way, and,
looking back, I think it made me lose perspective. ;-)

[...]
The reason to delay solids past 6 months is that the typical baby's
gut is immature, "leaky", younger than that. So the odds of a bad
reaction are highter when the baby is smaller.
Unless there are some recent studies that I've missed (possible),
there's no actual evidence that delaying past four months is of any
benefit here. When a study compared four months and six months as
ages to introduce anything other than breastmilk, the risk of proved
reactions to foods was found to be no different for the babies who had
waited to six months compared to the babies fed at four months. (Of
course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that the risk might
exist yet be too small to show up in the study, but there are limits
to what I'm prepared to worry about. ;-) )

Out of interest, was the study comparing breast-fed 4 and 6 month olds or
formula-fed 4 and 6 month olds?

It would have been looking at breastfed babies, since I found this in
the references to the WHO guidelines about waiting till 6 months. The
comparison was between babies who were exclusively breastfed until six
months and babies who had other substances introduced from four months.

I have heard (but of course, can't remember
where) that the initial feeding type makes a difference when it comes to
starting solids but this may have been disproved.

I would have thought that if you're already giving cow's milk protein,
there's less benefit in waiting to introduce anything else. Just my
theory. ;-)


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Lara wrote:
Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Unless there are some recent studies that I've missed (possible),
there's no actual evidence that delaying past four months is of any
benefit here.

One very recent study:

Pediatrics 2006;117;425-432
Caroline J. Chantry, Cynthia R. Howard and Peggy Auinger
Full Breastfeeding Duration and Associated Decrease in Respiratory Tract
Infection in US Children

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/117/2/425

Thanks, but you've taken what I said out of context. Beth was saying
that starting solids before six months was more likely to cause food
reactions (at least, I think that's what she was saying, unless I
misinterpreted it), and I was replying to that point specifically.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Sarah Vaughan wrote:

Lara wrote:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ract/117/2/425

Thanks, but you've taken what I said out of context. Beth was saying
that starting solids before six months was more likely to cause food
reactions (at least, I think that's what she was saying, unless I
misinterpreted it), and I was replying to that point specifically.

I think I misinterpreted your "here" as "here in mkb" rather than as "in
relation to food allergies specifically".

I see a lot of people who believe that the potential for food allergies
is the one and only reason anyone would ever "delay" solids (I don't
like the word "delay" when it means waiting till six months!) - and
there response is "well no one in my family has allergies, so I'm fine
to go ahead then." I was attempting to make the point that there is
some evidence there may be non-allergy-related risks associated with
premature solids introduction.

Tangenting now, it's my (rather nebulous) understanding, also, that the
"leaky gut" issue has also been connected to other risks of premature
foreign protein introduction, like Type I diabetes. It's not something
most people would classify as a "food allergy" or "food reaction", but
early bovine casein exposure is associated with it, probably via
non-allergic immune mechanisms. As far as I know, the definition of
"premature" really isn't well established in this context, and a lot of
parents include dairy products within their infant's first solid foods.

I've seen very, very little long-term research yet comparing 4 months'
and 6 months' exclusive breastfeeding (truly exclusive breastfeeding,
not retrospective slipshod data collection - "Oh, by the way, did you
breastfeed much? Not counting while you were still in hospital, of
course."), so I'll come right out and say that the relative lack of
evidence in this area is not something I place much store in.

Lara

Lara wrote:

there
^^^^^ Sheesh. Sorry.

Lara writes:

: Tangenting now, it's my (rather nebulous) understanding, also, that the
: "leaky gut" issue has also been connected to other risks of premature
: foreign protein introduction, like Type I diabetes. It's not something
: most people would classify as a "food allergy" or "food reaction", but
: early bovine casein exposure is associated with it, probably via
: non-allergic immune mechanisms. As far as I know, the definition of
: "premature" really isn't well established in this context, and a lot of
: parents include dairy products within their infant's first solid foods.

Following your tangent... (and taking it farther afield)

There are other evidences for the connect to other risks not associalted
specifically with food allergies, that I think is important not only to
when you start other foods, but how the transition is managed.

OK. On second thought, I don't know whether to classify this as not
allergy related or allergy related, but...

There is some evidence that continuing breastfeeding for 4 to 5 months
past the introduction of wheat gluten is protective against celiac
disease compared with terminating breastfeeding at the same time wheat
gluten is introduced. Again, I don't know if someone would classify
it as an allergy reaction or not.

However, regardless of whether it is wise to introduce other foods at
4 mos, 6 mos, or whatever, I think it is pretty clear from this
example and others that breastfeeding provides some protection against
all sorts of potential reactions when additional foods are introduced,
and that a gradual transition is the preferred approach.

Larry