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?

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.

This is a pet peeve of mine too

It's inaccurate certainly. Given that we advise if breastfeeding to supplement vitamin D etc and iron stores will run out if not replenished.

I agree with some pp, I think it’s so that people with babies who aren’t very interested in solids at first don’t worry too much.

On the other hand, both of mine had only 1 bottle of milk a day from around 9 months, the rest was food, simply because they weren’t interested in milk anymore.

I also agree with you, I have a 9 month old. She has completely dropped all daytime milk feeds so now only has morning bottle, bedtime bottle and one in the night - so she definitely needs to get her nutrition from food, which she loves and is WAY more interested in than she ever was in milk (it was a struggle to get her to drink even 6oz bottles).

Yea its clearly bollocks but I think its because after 1 if baby isn't eating a decent amount of solids then that would be a big red flag. My 8 month old has 3 meals a day plus 2 snack (and 3 milk feeds). She takes food very seriously and demolishes finger food plus lumpy puree. It's been fantastic for her speech and hand dexterity.

@SherlockSays, my baby is exactly like this. During the day she has her three meals, then bedtime bottle and another in the morning. She is spoonfed and most of it is chewed and swallowed. I also couldnt get past 180ml of milk, she just wasnt interested.

I'd also agree this is bullshit. There is a reason babies can and do eat solids/semi solids before one and it's because generally they need them, to fill them up, to give them nutrition, to develop their mouth muscles.

It's a terrible phrase and is highly misleading.

I thought the original point of the phrase was to emphasise to those looking to wran early that milk is the core of a baby's nutrition for the first year. Now it seems some people go to the other extreme and think babies don't need any solids, which is also not true. If only being balanced and treading a middle path were possible eh! Vitamin D supplements are required in winter regardless of the baby's diet (or adult's for that matter), we don't really get enough light in the UK to manage effectively without it. I never worried about iron, but that can need supplements if a baby ignores the green veg and meat options. Babies really don't need puree if the food is soft enough to be mashed by gums, my toothless one always ate a range of meat, vegetables and carbs even before teeth grew - just avoid very hard things like raw carrot that won't soften nor fall apart easily in the mouth like toast, steamed veg etc. DS loves meat, when we brought out the chicken about 6 weeks into weaning his little face went wild, like "where have you been hiding THIS?" and he toothlessly munched through over a baby fistful worth of chicken breast.

*wean not wran

I am sure the book the phrase comes from is more subtle and explains that babies do-need food other than milk after six months. But if you coin a phrase like this, of course it is going to be repeated to many people who have never read your book. And when it comes to babies, any phrase that is coined should be done so responsibly.

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 hmm, or to stop your 60 year old relatives from feeding them rusks at 6 weeks.

I agree that that was probably the original intention of this phrase, but it appears from a lot of online discussion that a lot of people are taking this phrase at face value and honestly believe that babies have no nutritional need for solid foods before 12mo. I think the expression needs to be junked because it's really misleading.