Evidence basis for BLW?

[TruthSweet]

I had a v interesting conversation with a HCP today who is going to be running a parenting course for mums of babies 3m+.

Amongst other things, starting will be covered. I asked if BLW would be mentioned and she said no because as a HCP she can only talk about things with an evidence/research basis.

As the British Dietetic Society have produced a chart to show you what foods/texture and when that's all she is allowed to recommend. Plus the WHO only recommends purees.

Is there any research/studies/evidence base for BLW or has Gill Rapley just pulled BLW out of her arse Not that I think that you understand as stick blenders were very rare in the Iron age so what did early man do til the 90's?

did you write any of them?

hey btw how exactly do academics rule out the fact that more control freaky mothers are just less likely to do it? do they have a good method?

sorry, that to peppa.
the choking thing is fascinating, actually. i contacted rospa about it yonks ago and the figures they had didn't record the age of the children who died from choking, or what they had choked on. from memory, it was something like 4 children in england and wales under the age of nine, choking on who knows what. i mean TERRIBLE, utterly TERRIBLE of course, but not as bad as one would think (i think).

One couldn't possibly answer that question Aitch

Statistics. That second paper cannot answer that question. It needs a bigger study which is suggested

Habbibu - its like a lot of things the government will not recommend without an RCT and safety checks. Which is a shame but with all the litigation they would face...

although maybe it just proves how fabulous puree is, i suppose?

No I would have thought it would have been more than that Aitch. And then if you rule out safe / unsafe circumstances...

It's a bit like a lot of things in parenting though isn't it - home birth, co sleeping...you can't test these things properly .

I guess they would need to start collecting incidences of choking from parents weaning in different ways.

and then it would be hard to grade the seriousness. i have a paediatrician friend who has worked in A&E for over twenty years (he's now a consultant). he struggled to remember one case of a choked child that was even remotely serious, and in the end decided that he'd maybe seen one older boy, couldn't remember if he'd had to put in a tracheotomy or anything. thought not, certainly not fatal.

he has seen parents bringing people in, obviously, but AFTER a choking incident and with no discernible damage.

lol at the little stars ads btw.

Lol - do you think Muller sensed BLW was being discussed?

It is all about attitudes really isn't it. Puree is so normal so blw seems 'new' when in fact it was probably the norm (well at least cave babies didnt have pink heat sensitive spoons).

It is not just about the choking it is about nutrient intake as well...is it sufficient etc. I'm sure it is but they need evidence before they can put their name behind it as such. However I bet in 5 or 10 years it will be promoted more.

"to which one would reply duuuurrr"
are you trying to have us believe that sentence was in a proper, stuffy, scientific paper?? Now that sounds like one I might read

Early woman probably pre-masticated food herself then spat some of it onto her finger and gave it to her weaning baby that way. That's my theory, anyway. No hand blenders required.

arf.

Child died in Cambourne by choking on a piece of apple, so accidents do happen, but they are rare.

Here

i don't think anyone is denying that accidents happen, though, are they?

but how old was the child and how were they weaned? and if they were doing BLW and in the maybe two months tops period where babies on puree are yet to have finger food, how come they missed the number one rule that says 'apples are a choke hazard'?

Quite.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and dabbling with both methods may be a recipe for disaster.

I'm sure a baby somewhere will have choked on a puree. Adults choke. Babies choke on milk. It is about ascertaining numbers and whether something proves a risk but how you do that ethically I'm not sure! 'Please sign up to a study so we can see if we can make your baby choke please'

I dont think the choking risk is actually their main concern - after all DoH recommend finger foods don't they. I think it is more about the nutrient intake and ability to self feed which the Millenium study starts to show it is possible.

I don't mean to be inflammatory here (I did finger foods alongside purees with both, although DS just wanted to be fed!) but I'd really like to know just the basic reasoning behind pure BLW with no purees, no spoons etc. Is it to do with later weaning? How on earth do you get enough calories into them?

I may be misunderstanding it but to me saying 'baby isn't going to eat anything he can't feed himself' is a bit like saying 'baby isn't going to wear anything he can't put on himself'. Aren't we supposed to do stuff for them when they're babies?

Tell me if I'm being an idiot, I am genuinely curious.

That story is so sad Boffinmum

x-posted with the story, that is really sad.

Well Aitch will be back in a minute no doubt, but the main thing to remember is they don't have to eat a lot. They could be fine on milk alone until about 8 or 9 months, and then they gradually need to start increasing their food intake.
Also, you'd be amazed at what they can do.
And yes, we are meant to do some things for them (after all true BLW would send them to the shop with a list and a tenner :o) but for a baby who has regulated their milk intake and been in control of their feeding, this fits in with that.

We don't really know Iheart although anecdotal evidence suggests that babies who are blw might have better appetite control and be less fussy both of which are good things. The reasoning would be that they may be more likely to stop eating when they are full (rather than keep eating when the spoon comes towards them and as some parents might try and get them to eat just a few more spoonfulls) and because they eat what they choose they are less fussy as have not had fed to them.

There isn't any scientific evidence for that yet though.

Also we do not know yet whether babies get enough nutrients - although you can more easily judge by your individual baby whether they are eating enough and of enough varity. Again scientific studies are needed.

Lots of positive anecdotal stories though

Why do it - less fuss for a lot of people

Well, also some babies flat out refuse to be spoonfed.

LOL at a list and a tenner.

Weaned both of mine at 5.5 months and they were hungry! (Should I run and hide now?)

Don't they miss out on learning to chew if they only have milk until 8 or 9 months?

Again, not being difficult, just interested!

Sorry, x-posted again! This is really interesting.

I'm about to start blw with dd2. Ds did mostly finger food in 1998 way before blw as he was a spoon refuser (apart from weetabix he took nothing from a spoon - all that time wasted pureeing). Dd1 did mostly finger food with roughly mashed up veg and lentils on occasion. I was at bf group last week and we were talking about weaning. Despite the recommendations the other mums have all started at 16-18 weeks with annabel karmel as their bible. One mum had a baby who spat out the purée so she laid him on his changing mat and poured the purée into his mouth so he'd get the idea of eating????? Baby waterboarding my dh called it. They all thought I was mad/neglectful for waiting to 6 months and doing blw.