When do solids become necessary?

Clisby wrote:

If you want anecdotal evidence: my daughter was formula-fed, and
didn't show a lot of interest in solids until she was past a year.
She was a picky eater - not in the sense that I couldn't get her to
eat a balanced diet, but she liked only certain foods and always
wanted them plain. To this day, she would be happy if I served some
variation on plain roast chicken; plain rice/potatoes/pasta; plain
green vegetable 5 nights a week. However, she has vastly improved
over the past year.

My son is BF. He started on solids at 5 months and never looked back.
He still nurses at 19 months, but the vast majority of his food is
solids. I am constantly amazed at how much such a little kid can
eat - he's in the 5th percentile for weight and height, and most
nights he eats more than I do for dinner.

I love anecdotal evidence, not because I think it means much but because I
find it interesting so I'm going to throw mine into the pot :-)

First, I'd say dh were 'moderates' on the scale of pickiness. We are not
adventurous. I was *terribly* picky as a child though.

Hunter was exclusively bf for 10 months at his choice. When he started
solids he had a very small appetite but ate pretty much anything we served
except fruit. He still has a small appetite but he is 4 and so has gotten
into a picky phase where how things look or are mixed together matters.

Luke was exclusively bf for 6 months. When he started solids he had a very
large appetite but would not eat certain things so he was pickier. If he
ate a bite of casserole with a pea in it he'd swallow all the rice and
manage to spit the one pea back out. He still has a good appetite but is
adding a new food now and again.

So I vote for personality :-)

--
Nikki
Mama to Hunter (4) and Luke (2)

Alphawave wrote in message ...
I've heard plenty of times not to start solids until 6 mos., but something
I've wondered about: until roughly what age can a baby continue to grow
and thrive on breastmilk alone?

After 6 months the chances of a purely BFed baby getting anemia
goes up steadily. It is about 10% at 6 months[*], about 25% at
9 months, about 30% at 12 months, and so on... Babies who are
purely breast fed without any other food source run a risk of
vitamin D problems, as well. The AAP is in the process of updating
their guidelines to recommend vitamin D drops for purely BFed
babies for this reason. There is also some research about Zinc
problem in such kids, but I'm not up on the details.
[*] This is why many people start solids at 4 months. Iron fortified
cerial starting at 4 months can lower/prevent this 10% anemia rate
at 6 months. Anemia is a major reason why fortified cerials are
such a popular (and important!) first food. Low iron (anemia) means
less oxygen for your baby's growing brain.

Joshua Levy

"Circe" wrote in message
news:kjr9b.36484$n94.572@fed1read04...

But beyond that, I'd sure like to know where you got your statistics
regarding the pervasiveness of iron-deficiency anemia.

Don't do it, Barbara! Nooooooo... don't go there!

You'll never win in a debate with Mr. Levy about studies because he
misinterprets them and then argues his point based on what he misinterpreted
in the first place. You'll spend hours reading links to the studies he has
that support his perspective... only to wonder if you both read the same
study.

Don't do it! You'll be sucked into the J. Levy vortex of study
DOOOOOOOOOOOOM.

Charlotte, vortex survivor

Alphawave wrote
After 6 months the chances of a purely BFed baby getting anemia
goes up steadily. It is about 10% at 6 months[*], about 25% at
9 months, about 30% at 12 months, and so on... Babies who are
purely breast fed without any other food source run a risk of
vitamin D problems, as well. The AAP is in the process of updating
their guidelines to recommend vitamin D drops for purely BFed
babies for this reason.

However, Vitamin D is based on sunlight (as well as food). If, for example,
you live in sunny Southern California, by the time you've walked with your
baby from wherever to the car, she's absorbed enough sunlight to get her
daily requirement of Vitamin D. If, however, you live somewhere where you
don't have constant sunlight (like Toronto on some of its grayer winters),
supplementing might be necessary. My ped and I discussed iron yesterday but,
since it's almost never not sunny here, Vitamin D isn't a problem.
--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03

Melissa writes:
: it's almost never not sunny here
: --
: Melissa (in Los Angeles)


That's right. Rub it in!

Larry in Nor Cal.

Oops. Sorry. DD hasn't been sleeping enough (until last night, thank
goodness) so please chalk it up to sleep deprivation.

--
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03

"Circe" wrote in message
news:%d3ab.40039$n94.32711@fed1read04...
"Melissa" wrote in message
news:1k2ab.491195$uu5.84262@sccrnsc04...
Alphawave wrote
After 6 months the chances of a purely BFed baby getting anemia
goes up steadily. It is about 10% at 6 months[*], about 25% at
9 months, about 30% at 12 months, and so on... Babies who are
purely breast fed without any other food source run a risk of
vitamin D problems, as well. The AAP is in the process of updating
their guidelines to recommend vitamin D drops for purely BFed
babies for this reason.

Oooh, careful with your attributes. Mr. Levy wrote that, not Alpha...
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [18mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"No parking passed this sign" -- hotel parking lot sign

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article ,
(Joshua Levy) wrote:

A second, much more recent study, with similar results is this one:
DOES FULL BREASTFEEDING FOR SIX MONTHS PLACE U.S. INFANTS AT RISK FOR
ANEMIA? Caroline J Chantry, Cynthia R Howard and Peggy Auinger

snip

On the other hand, I know of four studies done at nine months, and
they all show higher anemia rates for purely BF babies:
rest snipped

And you can all google for my response last time Joshie posted these studies.
I am not sure if he has shares in a vitamin pill factory or if this is his
preferred method of seeking attention. I stand by my observation that at this
stage, there is no unequivocal evidence that exclusive bfing for 6 months is
risky for anaemia. If there were, wouldn't the WHO (and recently, Australia
and the UK) be a little less pushy about exclusive bfing for the first 6
months?

--
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

Chookie wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Joshua Levy) wrote:

A second, much more recent study, with similar results is this one:
DOES FULL BREASTFEEDING FOR SIX MONTHS PLACE U.S. INFANTS AT RISK FOR
ANEMIA? Caroline J Chantry, Cynthia R Howard and Peggy Auinger

snip

On the other hand, I know of four studies done at nine months, and
they all show higher anemia rates for purely BF babies:
rest snipped

And you can all google for my response last time Joshie posted these studies.
I am not sure if he has shares in a vitamin pill factory or if this is his
preferred method of seeking attention. I stand by my observation that at this
stage, there is no unequivocal evidence that exclusive bfing for 6 months is
risky for anaemia.

I think this interchange shows what happens when you emotionally want to
believe on thing, but the data shows something else. The data showing that
BFing for 6 months causes a 4x increase (thats 400%) in anemia was in the
Chantry study that I posted, and you snipped out! Do you think that because
you snipped it out of my posting, it suddenly doesn't exist?

If there were, wouldn't the WHO (and recently, Australia
and the UK) be a little less pushy about exclusive bfing for the first 6
months?

The WHO recommendation is modivated by concern for third-world babies.
(Where the chance of death from diarrea dwarfs all other issues.) For
them, 6 months is a good minimum. But if you like the WHO recommendation
so much, here are some quotes from it. All taken from the summary at
the end of the iron section:

Human milk is a poor source of iron and cannot be
altered by maternal iron supplementation. It is clear
that the estimated iron requirements of infants cannot
be met by human milk alone at any stage of infancy.

The estimated iron intakes of exclusively
breastfed infants are insufficient to meet their iron
requirements.

[both quotes are from page 35 of NUTRIENT ADEQUACY OF
EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING FOR THE TERM INFANT DURING THE
FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE report by the WHO]

I should point out that this report is very politically correct,
and includes no data on anemia rates. (I guess that would be
a little too much information! :-)

Joshua Levy

In article ,
(Joshua Levy) wrote:

Chookie wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Joshua Levy) wrote:

A second, much more recent study, with similar results is this one:
DOES FULL BREASTFEEDING FOR SIX MONTHS PLACE U.S. INFANTS AT RISK FOR
ANEMIA? Caroline J Chantry, Cynthia R Howard and Peggy Auinger

snip

On the other hand, I know of four studies done at nine months, and
they all show higher anemia rates for purely BF babies:
rest snipped

And you can all google for my response last time Joshie posted these
studies.
snip

I think this interchange shows what happens when you emotionally want to
believe on thing, but the data shows something else.

I have this emotional desire to see research materials used properly. Loser.

Here is what I posted last time you posted the Chantry study:

'And this is what I posted last time you posted this study:

"It is interesting to note that the type of anaemia that bf babies risk is
neither low haemoglobin nor low ferritin, which is what I'd always understood
anaemia to be, but something called a *history* of anaemia. To me, that
implies anaemia that occurred earlier than the present, especially given that
rates of low haemoglobin and ferritin were pretty much the same between
"FullBF6+" and "FullBF4-5+". Do you (or anyone else) have a definition of
this hx of anaemia thing? It strikes me as very odd that two groups with
essentially the same rates of low ferritin and low haemoglobin could have such
a large difference in previous histories. Perhaps some confounding variable
is at work? "

Comments from some of the research heads here [ie mkb] are required, I think.
I'd also be interested to see how this study is being cited. It may also
interest you to know that the researchers did not suggest earlier introduction
of iron-rich solids for the "FullBF6+" group, but instead recommended
vigilance. To me, that doesn't indicate great disquiet with current
recommendations.'

For some reason Joshie never responded to those comments. Loser.

The data showing that
BFing for 6 months causes a 4x increase (thats 400%) in anemia was in the
Chantry study that I posted, and you snipped out! Do you think that because
you snipped it out of my posting, it suddenly doesn't exist?

Yeah, that would be why I left the reference at the top of my post. Loser.

If there were, wouldn't the WHO (and recently, Australia
and the UK) be a little less pushy about exclusive bfing for the first 6
months?

The WHO recommendation is modivated by concern for third-world babies.
(Where the chance of death from diarrea dwarfs all other issues.) For
them, 6 months is a good minimum.

How strange, then, that developed countries were not excluded from this
recommendation, and how strange that the relevant Australian body says this:

"Breastmilk is uniquely suited to the needs of infants throughout the duration
of lactation and provides all the nutrients required for at least the first
six months of life. The composition of breastmilk is compromised only in
mothers with severe malnutrition."
National Health & Medical Research Council, Dietary Guidelines for Children
and Adolescents in Australia, 2003,
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/pdf/n34.pdf, visited 28/9/03.

In a contest between you and the NH&MRC, you are the loser.

But if you like the WHO recommendation
so much, here are some quotes from it. All taken from the summary at
the end of the iron section:
Human milk is a poor source of iron and cannot be
altered by maternal iron supplementation. It is clear
that the estimated iron requirements of infants cannot
be met by human milk alone at any stage of infancy.

The estimated iron intakes of exclusively
breastfed infants are insufficient to meet their iron
requirements.

[both quotes are from page 35 of NUTRIENT ADEQUACY OF
EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING FOR THE TERM INFANT DURING THE
FIRST SIX MONTHS OF LIFE report by the WHO]

This document can be read online at
http://www.who.int/nut/documents/nut...eeding_eng.pdf
How about we look at page 35, with the sentence that you "forgot" to include
in your quotation:

"Human milk is a poor source of iron and cannot be
altered by maternal iron supplementation. It is clear
that the estimated iron requirements of infants cannot
be met by human milk alone at any stage of infancy.
The iron endowment at birth adequately provides for
the iron needs of the breastfed infant in the first half of
infancy. The iron available for growth and development
should be adequate until iron stores are exhausted."

Loser. Big time. Run away and play, little boy.

--
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