To think it is not true that food before one is just for fun?

[amandacarnet]

I hear this mantra from a relative, food before one is just for fun. Except I do not think it is true. Yes before one babies should b3getting the majority of their calories from milk. But from six months old babies usually need their iron levels boosted through food. Sure you can give supplements to do this if they will not eat. But surely the fact they can no longer get everything they need from milk, shows that babies have been designed to eat some food for six months old? And that food is not just for playing with?

It isn't fact babies need to start eating solids for their development . (I think) it was coined by a BLW enthusiast who had a book out I think the meaning has been lost somewhere along the line ive seen it said a lot on mumsnet when somebody is lasking about weaning

I was reducing this to be about not eating breakfast!
Babies take very little nutrition from food for the first few months, but it's important to teach them about chewing , swallowing food, introducing textures and flavours as well as allergens, so not fun but not really about nutrition initially, that's why NHS recommend vit D for BF babies and A and C for all babies from six months.

*expecting not reducing

But naturally babies would not be given supplements. So they would have to have got what they need from their food? I know it does not need to be much solid food though.

Watching my DGS, now 8 months, eating his food I would have to agree with you. He takes his food very seriously. And his older sister was exactly the same.

But I think many children at that age probably don't get a great deal of their nourishment from solid food because not much of it actually gets eaten. They squash it about and manage to get a bit into their mouths, but a lot of it ends up on the floor or in their hair.

I think the idea of it being for fun is just to make it clear to those who might not realise that small babies should still be getting their nourishment from milk and they shouldn't be relying on solid food.

Babies need to chew to develop their muscles towards speaking was what the health visitor told me. That late chewers are often later talkers.

That last sentence is a bit mangled; basically they still need milk to thrive, as the amount of solid food they take in won't be enough to nourish them, was what I meant.

Tbf not all babies are hoovering up their 5 a day at a year old that is where the fun before 1 message is quite good it helps parents not to stress.

Yes, I think it’s untrue. I have a 9mo baby, he’s breastfed on demand still. But he also wolfs down a bowl of porridge, a piece of fruit and two eggs (for example) per day (not BLW), and then will have 5-6 breastfeeds in between. I don’t see how the food part is just for fun, and wouldn’t dream of having a day where he just nibbles on some finger food and doesn’t swallow much, and relies solely on my milk. I know he would have enough nutrients from my milk, but he’d be very hungry!

We do give him a cracker or carrot stick to practice with, but so little actually goes in his mouth. I can see how a BLW enthusiast might have come up with that phrase.

Its mostly to stop people panicking that their 6 month old isn't on 3 full meals a day and eating a roast dinner on Sunday , or to stop your 60 year old relatives from feeding them rusks at 6 weeks.

Yes, they need to eat and learn appropriate skills but don't get your knickers in a knot about it.

Yes it’s bollocks.

Babies need nutrients that they’ll get from food at this point. It’s also important for them to be exposed to a wide range of foods and flavours for their development and laying the groundwork for good eating.

Having said that, babies clearly ‘get’ food at different points. My DS1 was demolishing three meals a day at 6 months. His little buddy didn’t eat much at all until a year. Both have grown up to be great eaters.

So long as food is being offered and some of it eaten, no need to worry. But it’s not ‘for fun’.

Yes babies do not need much solids, I agree. And yes I can understand that many mums can get anxious about their babies not eating enough solids.
I have read ,I don't know if it is true, that part of the reason our weaning guidelines are six months, is that some parents switch almost exclusively to so,ids at weaning. And that you can actually start weaning at four months, as long as it is very small amounts of food. But that giving babies mainly solids at four months is not good for them. But guidelines have to cater for the lowest common denominator.

It's fundamentally wrong advice though. Because babies DO need food before one for both nutrition and to develop their mouth muscles. It can make people think that it doesn't matter what foods you offer, as it's all just 'fun'. In reality tastes are set at this age and if sweet foods are offered primarily (which can be fruit or sweet veg like carrots) then they are less likely to eat vegetables as a child.

Yes it's fine to offer solids from 4 months and there is some evidence that it can reduce food allergies to do so.

I hate mantras anyway around bringing up kids. Something so simplistic that it can be reduced to a antra, is rarely helpful. Unless it is something obvious like, don't let your kids play with matches.

My 8 month old would go crazy without being fed every day.. hes starving and will eat a lot, Loves spicy food like curries and Vegetables.
He still drinks his bottles BUT he does lose weight if i don't feed him normal food so im sticking to feeding him everyday at breakfast and dinner time and then letting him have snacks like fruit throughout the day.. sometimes i feel he eats too much for his age but hes happy so as long as its healthy i go with it.

If you're taking the statement out of context (and I get that people do), yes, it could cause issues, but blw encourages giving babies as wide a range of tastes and textures as you can, and if they don't eat much then it's ok, they've had fun exploring the shape/texture etc. I can see how 'food before one is for fun' could be misunderstood.

I always thought that was a diet mantra, not a feeding babies mantra . Sorry, as you were!

It could be misconstrued? But the statement actually says that food before one is for playing with. That it does not matter at all other than that. That is not misconstruing. That is what it actually says.

I think it's so people don't cut down on milk feeds too much, even if their children are on three meals and snacks by 6months. All babies are different. I've done BLW with all three of mine and my 6.5month old is definitely chewing and swallowing as his poos have changed and stink! He doesn't have mountains of food but has a good go at whatever I give him. And developmentally, I think it is important, both for speech and language and coordination. He's already picking up much smaller pieces of food and he's only been eating for a couple of weeks.

I weaned both of mine at 4 months, so I am evil. But personally, I believe they need solids much earlier than a year. They need the nutrients and need the skills they develop through eating. Surely there is an evolutionary reason why babies put everything in their mouths and chew on everything?!

Both of mine made it quite clear that they were ready to eat food from 23 weeks. Milk is still an important source of nutrition until around 1, to what extent will depend on the individual's appetite for milk or solids.

Some babies don't find much appetite for solids until 7, 8, 9 months plus and will be fine with milk being a significant source of nutrition and that's where the mantra is useful. It's also useful for considering the other elements of food, sensory experience of textures, scientific analysis of how far you can fling it or drop it. I'm being slightly facetious but handling food does have wider learning benefits.

I doubt anyone has withheld food to a baby of 6-12m purely on the basis of food being fun until one.

Surely there is an evolutionary reason why babies put everything in their mouths and chew on everything?!

It's because their mouths are more sensitive than their hands at that age, a touch-sensitive mouth makes it easier for them to find and latch onto a nipple and to know when to start/stop sucking. Part of the reason they mouth objects is to feel them.

I agree though that food before one isn't just for fun, babies iron stores begin to reduce at around 5-6mo and they need more vitamins than can be supplied in milk alone. Milk should still make up the bulk of their calorie intake but they need to supplement their diet with solid food. Going way, way, way back to early man, babies food would have probably been pre-chewed and then poked into their mouth with a food covered finger so squishing up their sweet potato wedges and throwing them around wouldn't have been much of an issue.

I always took this to mean "don't stress about it" rather than that they don't need solid food.

It's absolute bollocks, one of my most hated phrases. My 9 mo demolishes 3 meals a day plus snacks, and the vast majority goes in his mouth and is chewed and swallowed.

Also dislike it when people go on about baby led weaning like the idea of finger foods is some new revelation and anyone who spoon feeds is the devil in disguise.