active baby, introduction of solids and doubling birth weight

H Schinske wrote:

FayeC ) wrote:



The question is...should I introduce solids at the 6 month mark even if she
hasn't doubled her weight gain?



I never heard before that doubling one's birthweight had anything to do with
readiness for solids. None of mine, biggish babies all, had doubled their
birthweights by six months, in fact I think my son was 10 or 11 months before
he doubled his (he was born at 9 lbs. 5 oz., so he still was not small). Other
babies may double their birthweight by 3 or 4 months of age (in fact I think
doubling by 4 months might be the average).








My first child's pediatrician mentioned the doubling-the-birthweight as
a sign of readiness, but
only at the lower end of the timeline. In other words, she thought it
was OK to start solids at 4 months
if the baby had doubled its birthweight by then. My daughter thought
otherwise - she
wouldn't have anything to do with solid food at that age.

Clisby

DD is 5 months and 1 week now and she is quite the active baby. She sat
without help a couple of weeks ago and she is already on hands and knees,
doing the swinging/rocking and trying to figure out how to move forward.
She is exclusively breastfed and is about 10 ounces from doubling her birth
weigth. Right now she is between the 50 and 75% in weight and at tht 50% in
height. She still nurses some 6-8 times a day (sometimes more depending on
the day) and is sleeping two stretches of 3-5 hours a night (sleeps from 10
to 3, nurses, sleeps from the time she finishes to 7-8, wakes up).
The question is...should I introduce solids at the 6 month mark even if she
hasn't doubled her weight gain? She only gained 8 ounces in the last month
and I don't know if that is good or bad.
She seems to be ready for solids as she is sitting upright just fine, she
can pick up objects quite well and she seems to be extremely interested in
whatever I am eating (often I eat with her on my lap and she keeps reaching
out for the food).
Are these the only signs or readiness? Is it related to doubling
birthweight? And should the fact that she is so active count when weighing
her? I mean...I know all active babies slim down after they get mobile and
chances are she'll be crawling before 6 months.... What if that makes her
lose weight or not gain much more??

Thanks for any help,

FayeC

Hi FayeC

My DD was very similar to yours. She sat up at 4 months, was trying to
crawl by 5 months, had doubled her birthweight by 6 months. However, I
tried solids at 4 months (too early, I now know!) without any interest at
all despite her doing all the things you describe your DD doing. Once the
spoon went near her mouth she would turn her head or spit. I left it until
6 months with the same result. My DD has never really been interested in
food to be honest. As far as crawling, it takes them a while to figure it
out and she may not be crawling by 6 months (my DD tried for a good 2 months
before she actually figured out how to crawl forward at 7 months). I am not
sure about the doubling weight thing as a sign for solids readiness,
although baby center seems to think that's important
http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/bab...ing/113.html#1 And anyway,
introducing solids is more about exploration and introducing them to
different tastes than nutrition, at least in the beginning. Anyway, that's
my 2c. I'm sure others have lots to add!
CY

"Wayne Tarzwell" wrote in message
.. .
DD is 5 months and 1 week now and she is quite the active baby. She sat
without help a couple of weeks ago and she is already on hands and knees,
doing the swinging/rocking and trying to figure out how to move forward.
She is exclusively breastfed and is about 10 ounces from doubling her
birth
weigth. Right now she is between the 50 and 75% in weight and at tht 50%
in
height. She still nurses some 6-8 times a day (sometimes more depending on
the day) and is sleeping two stretches of 3-5 hours a night (sleeps from
10
to 3, nurses, sleeps from the time she finishes to 7-8, wakes up).
The question is...should I introduce solids at the 6 month mark even if
she
hasn't doubled her weight gain? She only gained 8 ounces in the last month
and I don't know if that is good or bad.
She seems to be ready for solids as she is sitting upright just fine, she
can pick up objects quite well and she seems to be extremely interested in
whatever I am eating (often I eat with her on my lap and she keeps
reaching
out for the food).
Are these the only signs or readiness? Is it related to doubling
birthweight? And should the fact that she is so active count when weighing
her? I mean...I know all active babies slim down after they get mobile and
chances are she'll be crawling before 6 months.... What if that makes her
lose weight or not gain much more??

Thanks for any help,

FayeC

FayeC ) wrote:

The question is...should I introduce solids at the 6 month mark even if she
hasn't doubled her weight gain?

I never heard before that doubling one's birthweight had anything to do with
readiness for solids. None of mine, biggish babies all, had doubled their
birthweights by six months, in fact I think my son was 10 or 11 months before
he doubled his (he was born at 9 lbs. 5 oz., so he still was not small). Other
babies may double their birthweight by 3 or 4 months of age (in fact I think
doubling by 4 months might be the average).

She only gained 8 ounces in the last month
and I don't know if that is good or bad.

Sounds okay to me. I just got out my twins' old health records, and they were
in for checkups at 4 months and at 6.5 months, and between those visits one of
them gained a pound and six ounces, but the other gained only seven ounces.
They were both completely normal and healthy. The one who had gained less had
just learned to crawl at six months, and had been working at it feverishly. I
think she had just burned it up. She had been the larger of the two at birth,
and at 6.5 months weighed only 11 ounces less than her sister. By the 10-month
visit she was only 4 ounces behind her sister, who had gained 3.5 pounds to her
4.

--Helen

Well Faye I have had Izabella on soilds since about 3 weeks ago or so, and
she loves it. I dont think that doubling the birth weight has anything to do
with it at all. And being mobile is a good thing. I guess itw ould be a way
for her to burn it off, thats what Izabellas pedi told us.
He told us that we would know the signs for when shes ready to eat, she will
show us. She was sitting up right, crawling, and all the time grabbing food
if it was in arms reach, and if it was not she was holding both arms out as
if she was grabbing at it. Than we knew she was ready.

Judge yourself I guess is the best advice. Try it with her, worse case if
she does not like it you try again tomorrow. Good Luck

--
Laura
Mommy to Izabella **Feb 10th, 2003**
And 2 felines *Ashes(2) & George (4)*
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/i/izabellawelburn/

"Wayne Tarzwell" wrote in message
.. .
DD is 5 months and 1 week now and she is quite the active baby. She sat
without help a couple of weeks ago and she is already on hands and knees,
doing the swinging/rocking and trying to figure out how to move forward.
She is exclusively breastfed and is about 10 ounces from doubling her
birth
weigth. Right now she is between the 50 and 75% in weight and at tht 50%
in
height. She still nurses some 6-8 times a day (sometimes more depending on
the day) and is sleeping two stretches of 3-5 hours a night (sleeps from
10
to 3, nurses, sleeps from the time she finishes to 7-8, wakes up).
The question is...should I introduce solids at the 6 month mark even if
she
hasn't doubled her weight gain? She only gained 8 ounces in the last month
and I don't know if that is good or bad.
She seems to be ready for solids as she is sitting upright just fine, she
can pick up objects quite well and she seems to be extremely interested in
whatever I am eating (often I eat with her on my lap and she keeps
reaching
out for the food).
Are these the only signs or readiness? Is it related to doubling
birthweight? And should the fact that she is so active count when weighing
her? I mean...I know all active babies slim down after they get mobile and
chances are she'll be crawling before 6 months.... What if that makes her
lose weight or not gain much more??

Thanks for any help,

FayeC

"Wayne Tarzwell" wrote
The question is...should I introduce solids at the 6 month mark even if
she
hasn't doubled her weight gain?

There's no way that doubling birth weight can be related to introducing
solids since dd doubled hers weeks ago. She was born at 5 lbs. 9 oz. and
currently (at 15 nearly weeks) weighs 13 lbs. 3 oz.

Although, obviously, I'm not there yet, I'd wait to introduce solids until
your daughter seems to be interested in them and seems to want to eat
herself. She can thrive on nothing but breast milk for a long time.
--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03

Hi -

A poster talked about how the individual child varies, and so does their
readiness for solids. Therefore, she said, sometimes it's okay to
introduce solids as early as 4 or even 3 months of age.

I have to disagree. Although in many ways a child may be ready for
solids quite young, the key readiness factors (sealing of the gut,
appropriate development of the immune system), which
avoids food allergies and similar complications) is simply not visible.
With that one, you're playing Russian Roulette. You HOPE that you are
delaying solids long enough (at 4-6 months) to avoid these kinds of
complications, but you can't know until you get there. By 4 months of
age, the odds are in your favor. By 6 months they're way in your favor.
But even then, if you have a family history of allergy, you're advised
to wait until at least 7 months of age to introduce anything other than
breastmilk.

Yes, many individual children may be ready much earlier. But you can't
tell by looking.

My two cents,
--Beth Kevles

http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic
Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical
advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner.

wrote:

I have to disagree. Although in many ways a child may be ready for
solids quite young, the key readiness factors (sealing of the gut,
appropriate development of the immune system), which
avoids food allergies and similar complications) is simply not visible.
With that one, you're playing Russian Roulette.

Oh, well said, Beth! I was trying to think how to phrase this.

I really can't think of any reason that waiting a month or two would *harm* a
small baby, even one who was ready for solids. It's not at all like crawling or
walking, where if they're ready there is no *way* to stop them short of
cruelty.

--Helen

In article ,
(Elfanie) wrote:

we look at the individual child and say, "So they developed
early...so?" or we say, "Every child is different...your child just
goes at their own pace..."

why is introduction of solids any different??

I think it is because while one part of the child's physiology may be ready
(eg no tongue-thrust), another aspect -- specifically, the gut -- might not
be. For example, I was physically capable of becoming pregnant at nine.
However, I would have been unlikely to give birth without physical damage at
that point.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"...children should continue to be breastfed... for up to two years of age
or beyond." -- Innocenti Declaration, Florence, 1 August 1990

Wayne Tarzwell wrote:
Where I was born the average age for babies to start walking is 9
months.

I don't think it's true. I think you've just known an unusual proportion of
early walkers. The average age for walking has always been 12-13 months. And
my understanding is that this is pretty much the average for babies
worldwide, not just in the US/Canada. The normal "range", IIRC, is 8-16
months. IOW, it's within the normal range for babies to walk well before one
year of age and it's also in the normal range for them to walk well after
one year of age. For the average age of walking to be 9 months, you'd have
to have a significant proportion of babies walking at 6-7 months to balance
out the babies who walked at 10-12 months, and I just don't think that's the
case anywhere in the world. It's certainly possible that 9 months is the
average age for children in *your* family (genetics plays a role), but I
doubt it's possible for 9 months to be average for an entire country when
it's so much later elsewhere in the world.

I think that culture also play a big part on the motor
development. We tend to give more freedom to babies througout the
year by allowing them to remain almost unclothed and allow tons of
floor time.

It's true the culture plays some role. But in American and Canadian culture,
babies are afforded plenty of opportunities to play on the floor and
explore. They're not being "stunted" in their development. To the contrary,
it is probably *more* "normal" for babies in their first year to spend most
of their time being carried by an adult and *not* on the floor playing.
Think about the conditions under which humans have typically lived and
you'll appreciate why this is the case--people didn't live in houses with
clean floors, but in caves and huts with dirt floors. It's unsafe to allow
babies to spend much time on the ground when the ground is covered with
pebbles, rocks, leaves, and a thousand other either poisonous or chokable
items they might put in their mouths. And to this day, you find babies are
mostly carried in cultures that are more traditional/less industrialized. In
traditional society, for example, babies aren't even put on the floor until
they are a year old, when there's a big party to celebrate the first time
the baby's feet are put on the ground.

I honestly don't think the snow in Canada has much to do with it. I live in
Southern California where there's no snow and a very temperate climate. Both
of my "normal" kids (I have one who had some muscle issues that caused motor
delays and therefore walked very late) walked at right around 13 months. My
youngest didn't actually crawl until a week before he turned 1, but then was
walking 6 weeks later. His cousin (3 weeks older) was crawling at 8 months
and spent practically every waking minute on the floor and in motion from
that point forward, but *he* didn't walk until he was over 14 months old (he
was just such a good crawler, he didn't see the point!).

Here, I know babies who have walked at every age within the normal range
(and even one that walked at 7 months--that was scary!). And none of the
ones who walked *after* 9 months were in any way "delayed" from walking by
something their parents did. It was
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"How a seller can improve their home's value" -- newspaper headline

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.