Advanced search

Please explain to me the benefit of baby led weaning? Because I can't see the difference in the long term

(42 Posts)
rasputin Sun 30-Jun-13 11:23:20

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Finickynotfussy Sun 03-Nov-13 22:16:01

I don't get how BLW is for lazy people as when I tried it I ended up cleaning the floor a great deal more! At least with purees and so on I can whisk the bowl away when DD gets that glint of 'hmm could that fly?'

However, now she is crawling she is trying to BLW onto cat food anyway grin.

Brugmansia Sat 02-Nov-13 15:34:14

The appeal for me with BLW is partly because it feels like a return to what people always have done. It only seems like a new fad because the norm has become weaning based on baby rice, purees and special baby food. I don't think anyone is making any money out of it either, seeing as the whole principle is that you don't need to have anything special and you just give babies normal food. On the other hand, lots of money is clearly made out of the puree type route, with all the different jars of food, pouches, special baby snacks and Annabel Karmel style meal plans and products.

It's not a cop out either. You don't need to faff around stewing fruit and making purees, but then I've seen enough parents who are doing the puree route who seem to rely pretty much entirely on prepared jars and pouches anyway. One reason I like BLW is because I really like food and cooking anyway and I'm enjoying making food for DS that will give him a balanced diet and that he can feed himself relatively easily.

SatinSandals Thu 31-Oct-13 22:16:56

However I wouldn't argue with the friend, smile and nod.

SatinSandals Thu 31-Oct-13 21:53:02

It is laughable that anyone thinks you can force purées down a baby's throat, they clearly haven't tried it!

SatinSandals Thu 31-Oct-13 21:49:00

As granny says people always did it, they were just laid back and did a mix and didn't have a misleading label. The baby has the choice if 'take it or leave it' the way they always have. The only benefit that I can see is that it does away with commercial jars. It makes no difference whatsoever in the long term. The aim is to get them to eat family meals and how you get to that point really doesn't matter, it is so short.
Having a balanced diet is the important thing and not labelling food as 'good' or 'bad'. Keeping off sugar until 6 yrs is a sure way to make it highly desirable! I don't think she realises how difficult it will be unless she isolates her child.

grannyof3 Thu 31-Oct-13 21:18:09

I weaned my two "children" 64 years ago. Nothing much has changed since then except the fruit and veg that was offered was seasonal and locally grown. BLW is making someone a lot of money yet its been around forever. Myself and all my friends put finger foods in front of our babies and let our babies feed themselves. What we also did was feed them with a spoon too.Yes the baby rice and pureed pear was sloppy and we always let them put their fingers in the bowl so they could help themselves at the same time. It seems to me to be a much better way of introducing foods than going from liquid to crunchy. I think BLW is a bit of a cop out for parents that don't have the time or possibly the energy to spend time preparing their baby's meals. Both my girls are slim, they care about what they put in their bodies. Lets stop pretending BLW is anything other than a new name for something that has been going on for hundreds of years. Do we imagine for one minute the Victorians had blenders-nah reckon there would have been a few lumps !!!

MiaowTheCat Thu 04-Jul-13 19:19:42

Militant BLWers are becoming an extension of the mummy wars - the next chapter. The one who told me, because I was going the more traditional weaning puree route, that I was "forcing food down my child's throat" being a delightful specimen of womankind.

I just did weaning - pick-upable stuff got picked up, occasionally un-pickupable stuff gets attempted to be picked up (we had an epic battle with some uncooperative jelly the other day), stuff goes on spoon, on floor, on dog, in dog. Had to do puree and spoon initially as because of her prematurity - she simply didn't have the motor skills to self-feed but was desperately eager for solid foods (and we waited till about 1 week before 6 months, on a ridiculous sized bottle feed, hungry baby milk and still a starving hungry baby with weight gain going on a far steeper curve than I was comfortable with) and she took to them with absolute gusto - when she was at the point of being able and interested to take the lead more - she did so... surely THAT part is truly being "baby-led"

DD1 also had absolutely no teeth till 13 1/2 months (when she cut five in one very very very very very very fucking long week) and some stuff just was beyond her ability (or boredom threshold) to gum to death!

Xmasbaby11 Sun 30-Jun-13 19:43:16

I think it's just about what works with your baby. I tried BLW with DD but she just wasn't interested. She's just not one of those babies who puts things into her mouth and either played with it or ignored it. It took until she was at least 1 before she would let anything solid into her mouth, even though she had plenty of teeth by then.

Friends who tried BLW had great results and I would definitely try it with DD2!

Chunderella Sun 30-Jun-13 16:22:43

I actually suspect that eating is like sleeping where babies are concerned. That is, some of them love it and take to it and would do so regardless of parental techniques used and choices made. And some of them just don't fancy it whatever you do!

DoodleAlley Sun 30-Jun-13 15:41:10

I think extremes of either isn't healthy.

We had to do purées due to DS reflux and strong gagging instinct. Otherwise he wouldn't have got protein into him in sufficient quantities. I've known other people who have only done jarred purées, which doesn't seek ideal but you do what you need to.

I've seen excellent BLW children and also the worst eater I know is currently being BLW and survives on entirely
Processed solid foods - cornflakes, raisins, crackers, white bread and ham.

I think as a parent no matter what you do the emphasis should be on good nutrition and variety.

You can do good and bad versions of both!

KingRollo Sun 30-Jun-13 15:31:24

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gastrognome Sun 30-Jun-13 15:16:29

I did BLW for both my daughters. DD1 (5) is now, quite picky and would sit and be fed by me if she could get away with it at every mealtime. DD2 (2.5) will give most things a try, hates being fed and digs in to her meals with hands, fork, spoon, chopsticks or any other available implement.

I think the benefits for me in the short term were the total lack of stress or hassle about mealtimes, no pureeing, variety of foods that they ate when weaning.

In the long term, both girls eat solid food so I suppose that's a result, and they don't have any "issues" around food or mealtimes that I can ascertain, but I suspect that we could have achieved the same result via traditional weaning methods.

Having said all that I am still glad we went the BLW route, not only as a time saver but also because it helped me to be very relaxed about mealtimes, not worry about gagging, and let them explore food in their own way.

One last thing it is worth pointing out (sorry if repeating something others have said) is that BLW does not simply equal finger foods. It's about putting manageable portions in front of baby and letting them decide what to eat, how much, and in what way. Basically it is a hands off approach for parents, but hands on for kids.

Oh, and the best friend sounds like she has got totally carried away.

Chunderella Sun 30-Jun-13 15:01:42

There are a lot of claims about what is the 'best' way, not really any evidence. It's just about finding what suits your individual baby. There's nothing that works universally, be it purees, BLW or anything inbetween. Hence radicalisation is idiotic, regardless of approach. I'm wary of extrapolating my own experience to everyone, but I think a significant minority if not the majority borrow a bit from all approaches!

CharlieBlanche Sun 30-Jun-13 13:14:56

I did BLW because I have twins and it was easier as neither of them had to wait. They don't eat any differently now than their friends (5 yo). Actually there are several things (like curry) that they ate at 2 that won't eat now.

The only thing I notice different from friends children who went down a more trafitional route is that mine are a bit better at sitting at the table for a long while with the family. This might be because BLW advocates children eating with the family and as a result they have learned to sit for longer or it might be that I am stricter about table manners. It's hard to say.

Re the no sugar thing, I would nod and smile and wait to see how she is going to handle party invitations...


AppleYumYum Sun 30-Jun-13 12:38:36

We've done BLW with ds, he's 13 months now it's worked out really well as he'll give anything a go, loves all foods, even curry, whereas my sister's little girl at 2 refuses to ever eat fruit, vegetables etc, must be beige or spag bol. But maybe he'd always have been like that? Another friend's ds the same age as mine, she is terrified of giving anything not puréed still, and is used to spooning in a certain amount of food (which if he has finger food he wouldn't eat that much so she worries) so her ds will spit out anything with even a tiny bit of texture or that needs a bit of chewing. Although another friend did a bit of both and he eats like a trouper, so I think as long as you give finger foods at the same time so they get used to it and chewing then it all works out fine. Best benefit like others said it's so easy and you can eat at the same time, they watch you and copy you too. You just need to trust their gag reflex which is very sensitive and try not to be guilt tripped by the baby food company weaning stages as it is a very different way of doing things. Also they use the saying 'food under 1 is just for fun' and play attitude too, so not to worry if they only eat a little, most nutrients and energy are still from milk until then.

Scientific rationale I suppose is along the lines of self regulating appetite and over feeding, later obesity and type 2 diabetes etc. I don't know if it is true or not. They say with breast feeding a baby drinks what they need, the milk comes in let downs, the message to say they're full reaches them and they stop sucking and milk stops immediately. So they learn to self regulate. Whereas bottle feeding (including expressed milk) the teat keeps filling and milk coming out even if they stop sucking, the message to say they are full is not reached right away, so they drink extra, so like the next day after a big Christmas dinner, your tummy is stretched and it takes more to feel full the next time and so on.

So BLW is supposed to be an extension of breast feeding in that the baby decides how much to eat and when they've had enough, whereas spoon feeding purée you can shovel it in. Although I am not sure if that is right, you can't make a baby eat if they don't want anymore, they clamp that mouth shut and turn their head away! Unless it is sweet, then like me my ds has a separate dessert stomach! smile.

Theas18 Sun 30-Jun-13 12:32:44

the didn't outcome that ifs sometimes suggested if that you end up with a child arranged into an adult diet.because they eat is pretty much always " real food", so end up eating normal stuff rather that the kiddified transition food type stuff . however I'm sure that depends what you freed after all.

eg my friend blw 3 yr old eats lots of things her big kids won't touch ( they are preteen/ tween) egprawns, salami chili, curry etc

MummyOfSunbeam Sun 30-Jun-13 12:27:22

(Giggles at mini-K8Middleton's resourceful electronics focused blw!)

K8Middleton Sun 30-Jun-13 12:22:27

Yes more than finger foods and loaded spoons but that's a good shorthand. Ds used to like blueberries, peas and raisins. Dd at the same age likes... boob and chewing all the remote controls and phones in the house. She's definitely doing baby-led but not much of the weaning hmm grin

Glimmerberry Sun 30-Jun-13 12:16:20

Advocates say that children will be in more control with BLW, and not eat beyond satiety. That's been extrapolated to suggest they'll be less likely to be obese.

But anyone advocating an all or nothing extreme approach is probably a bit daft. You need to adapt to your own child. For some that'll be mixing and matching.

YoniBottsBumgina Sun 30-Jun-13 12:15:09

Yeah I'm pretty sure she's made up the no sugar thing. But no bother. He will discover Haribo before he is 2.

MummyOfSunbeam Sun 30-Jun-13 12:11:57

In addition to 'finger foods and loaded spoons' you can just let baby scoop up handfuls of things. Dd was happily eating handfuls of lentils, risotto, quinoa, rice, you name it, from six months. I agree with the other posters it is all about relaxed and enjoyable adventurousness.

It is also much older than so called 'traditional weaning' - the structured staggered purée thing is really recent and tied in historically to the emergence of formula feeding and various misunderstandings about the (dis)advantages of baby rice at three months etc. the Rapley book has a v interesting section on weaning methods in the 20th century.

iwantanafternoonnap Sun 30-Jun-13 12:10:50

I did it because I was lazy and it improves eye/hand co-ordination. I think it is better but I also think you should do what's best for you and your baby.

Your friend sounds a pain!

MummyOfSunbeam Sun 30-Jun-13 12:02:59

I love blw (but that anti sugar until six thing sounds extreme to me and not part if it.)

There ARE allegedly some extra benefits to blw with some research evidence though I can't claim to have checked out all the refs etc. The claims include that it can reduce the power issues that sometimes gather around food/food anxiety/refusal etc. it also does get kids chewing much earlier on than the purée method does, and apparently that helps develop the muscles eventually used for talking (bf does that too in a different way). There is also apparently evidence it can reduce choking risks around age 8/9 mths when the gag reflex moves to the back if the mouth - blw babies have by that point got a lot if experience moving solid food around their mouths, so apparently are less likely to choke compared to mainly purée fed babies who didn't get that practice in while the gag reflex was located further forwards.

It also gives baby practice w motor coordination, pincer, etc. an education psychologist I know says it gives huge kinaesthetic benefits in the sane way as messy play - which of course it basically is smile

But regardless of the claims above , the reason I personally do blw is that dd loves it, I love it, it makes us all eat better as a family, and it is so easy and fun.

ChippingInWiredOnCoffee Sun 30-Jun-13 11:56:53

The no-sugar thing is entirely of your friends making and nothing to do with BLW (beyond the obvious don't let them eat cake 24/7). If you are interested in finding out more about why it is thought to be good for their development then the Gill Rapley book is a good read - but at the end of the day if by the age of 2 they are self feeding a variety of food it really doesn't matter how they get there.

A lot of people say that babies who are BLW eat a better variety of foods as toddlers as they tend to have tasted a wider variety of foods - which does make a bit of sense as purees tend to be several things mixed together so you don't taste each ingredient - so maybe there's something in it, but I know fussy kids who have been puree fed and fussy kids who have been BLW. It's not a clear advantage by any means.

Your friend just sounds a bit mean/bonkers!

barleysugar Sun 30-Jun-13 11:56:30

I personally hate the way some people believe its an either/or with weaning.

What is wrong with a few purees, a few mushes and a few finger foods?

Best of both worlds.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now