How on earth does BLW work?

[Ozziegirly]

My DS is 6 months old and has been weaned for a couple of months now. I give him some finger food at most meals and the most he ever "eats" is one tiny mouthful, and barely that. He'll munch on a piece of fruit but only with my help. Mainly it's just mushing it up in his mouth.

But when I spoon feed him he eats LOADS, and a real variety.

So if I was BLW (which I was actually quite keen on until I had an actual child) surely he would be eating way too little? So how does it work?

Most of their nutrition comes from milk until a year, so it doesn't really matter that they only get small amounts of food in the first couple of months until they get the hang of it. Though my 7 month old manages to feed himself quite a lot of food, it was macaroni cheese by the handful for lunch!

It's not a new concept, it's just got a shiny name. I did this with my son 18 years ago, alongside purees. He loved cream cheese finger sandwiches.

If it's alongside purees it isn't really BLW, it's just offering finger food alongside purees.

I guess I just look at it from an evolutionary perspective, and in nature, mothers mash up food for their offspring for a while.

I'm quite happy with how I'm feeding DS, he eats plenty and really enjoys it, but I'm just amazed that there would be such a huge difference between what he would be eating if he was solely BLWeaned, as opposed to the combination of spoon and finger food.

It's interesting - clearly no way is right or wrong and we do whatever works for us.

What do you mean by "in nature"? - humans or animals?

What mammals mash up food for their offspring?

I've never seen any animals doing food mashing - young copy their mothers once they are ready to do so

From a evolutionary perspective, I reckon Cro-Magnon woman dangled here baby on her knee till one day he was mentally and physically ready to eat and then he helpe himself from what she was eating. She might have pre-chewed some meat for him but I doubt there was the time for making special baby foods - he would have weaned gradually and slowly, eating what everyone else ate

I think from an evolutionary perspective, BLW would have been what happened. The animals which mash up food for their young are generally not mammals - birds, reptiles etc do it. Animals who drink milk generally take to solids quite easily once they are ready.

And it's interesting how developmentally, most babies can pick up things and get them to their mouths at around 5-6 months - the age that current research supports as best for weaning. And the pincer grip doesn't evolve until a bit later, when presumably they already have the hang of eating larger things without choking.

I think the evolutionary bit is the mothers giving their babies food that they were able to manage i.e. steamed veg for a human baby who has the skills to pick it up and put it in his mouth. I don't think other mammels have got an equivalent to Annabel Karmel!!!

My DS got stuck in to BLW pretty well from the start. But I was also very very careful not to stress about how much got eaten at each meal, as milk was his main diet. I don't know many fellow BLW'ers in real life, but when I think back to the early weaning stage, most mums I knew stressed about how much their bubs were eating, whether they were spooning it in or letting them get on with it.

I think you've got to be pretty relaxed to do BLW!

catdoctor Ermm, except all the mammals that feed their weaned offspring chewed-up/partially digested/regurgitated food of course.

Ok, this is how it goes, as far as I understand it. I may not have all the facts 100% accurate but you get the gist.

100 years ago, it was normal for babies to be breastfed, either by their mothers or by wet nurses. Solids were introduced at 6-9 months and bfing continued into toddlerhood.

Around 50-70 years ago, childrearing became more 'medicalised' and it was believed that formula (early formula was very different to what we have today) was superior to breastmilk, and women were encouraged to bottle feed.

There was also a social element to it, breastfeeding was for poor people who couldn't afford formula.

The idea of 4 hourly feeding routines etc also became common around this time, which also meant that breastfeeding was often unsuccessful, as the breasts weren't stimulated frequently enough to produce enough milk.

The formula available then wasn't as nutritious as it was today, so babies began to lose weight.

To counteract this, babies were given 'solids' earlier. But 3-4 month old babies can't manage solid food, so purees were used, as young babies could swallow these.

In the mid 70's (? - maybe a bit later, can't remember), research showed that early introduction to solids could cause allergies and digestive problems so the DoH introduced recommendations that solids should be introduced between 4-6 months and not before.

More research was done, and in the early 2000's, the World Health Organisation recommended that babies had no nutritional need for solid food before 6 months, and the DoH in this country adopted this guideline.

Research has also shown that babies still get the bulk of their nutrition from milk until they're one year old. Food is a secondary source of nutrition until then, so while it is important that it is introduced, it's nutritional value to the baby is limited.

The Baby Led weaning movement has followed on from these guideline when people realised that if you wean babies at 6 months rather than 4, they are capable of putting food into their mouths, and learning to chew and swallow it, without the need for purees.

Habits and culture takes rather longer to change, despite the research and guidelines having been around for several years now, and many people are uncomfortable with the thought of of 6,7,8 month old babies eating relatively small amounts of solids as they explore food and learn at their own pace.

The advertising from baby food manufacturers, plus the sometimes unrealistic expectations of sleep patterns of babies of this age, ensure that some people will continue to feel more comfortable feeding babies larger quantities of pureed food, even though it's not nutritionally necessary.
.

What mammals do that, hogsback? I can't think of any.

Ooops, sorry about the essay

Sorry, my post wasn't a "what is better?" it was more an interested query. I have no intention of changing how I feed as my DS has a varied and wide diet. I was actually keen to do BLW but I also want to ensure he actually has some food which I don't think he would if I stuck to BLW.

But wonderful to all of you who just do the finger food feeding, as I said we're all different!

Oh, and FYI, I didn't do purees or bought baby food, it's just normal food, mashed up a bit.

Oh and I would love to read the studies which compare babies and children who have been weaned from purees with those BLW (specifically in terms of allergies but any other studies that have been done too) - could you direct me to them as it might make me try a bit harder with the BLW!

Do some wild dogs regurgitate food for their pups after hunting?

Bertie: all canids (including domestic dogs), some large felines. Not really relevant to the conversation, but demonstrates the hazards of appealing to "nature" to back up an argument.

Honestly, don't get hung up on my "nature" point - throwaway point where I basically meant that in nature mothers will just give babies food they can deal with - so a squished up worm if you're a bird rather than a long wriggly one etc.

As far as I know no other animal cooks meat so we're not exactly "natural" anyway - if you're comparing us to chimps!

And, can I point out, I'm not making an "argument"! I was just asking about BLW.

Jojay, thats very interesting and makes a lot of sense!'

Ozzie: sorry, wasn't attacking you! In fact you made a very valid point that "in nature" mothers use all the resources at their disposal to feed their young. To a wild dog this might mean partially digesting meat to make it easier to digest, to a human mother this might mean mashing up food to make it easier to digest.

As far as I know there are no studies that compare BLW-ed babies with puree fed ones.

What you will find if you google it, are the studies that back up the current WHO guidelines, ie no solids required before 6 months. I haven't got time to trawl through and find them as i must go to bed in a minute but I'm sure someone will.

WRT allergies, as I understand it, it's more to do with the timing of introducing foods, not whether that food is pureed or solid. For example, giving gluten before 6 months is not advised, but it would be irrelevent whether it was in the form of, say, soft Weetabix, or 'solid' toast, it's still gluten.

Please don't think that anyone thinks you are doing anything wrong by feeding your baby purees though, I certainly don't. It's the most popular method of introducing solids and as you say, each to their own.

I was just too lazy to make purees with DS2 and trying to spoonfeed him was a power struggle so it seemed easier to let him get on with it. As such, I'm a convert to BLW but that's not to say there's anything wrong with purees. As long as they're over 17 weeks, it's just another method of introducing solids, nothing more, nothing less, and the end result - the baby eating normal food by the age of 1 - is generally exactly the same - it's just a different route that's all

That's interesting Jojay - and I'm actually not doing purees - we just mash/chop up the food and give finger foods as well.

Over here in Oz the guidelines have now changed to say that weaning should start at 4 months as long as the baby is ready so it'll be interesting to see whether that is adopted by the UK as well.

As I said, it's interesting that we all do things differently, but by and large, all children and adults end up eating pretty much the same in the end!

Well the UK guidelines do already say that, sort of - they say it's best to wait until 6 months, but definitely no earlier than 17 weeks. The problem is that although the guidelines state signs of readiness, a lot of parents (and health visitors) are still using old signs of readiness which we now know are irrelevant - like waking through the night or doubling birth weight or being extra hungry etc.

I see, I wondered what they said now, as lots of my friends are adamant that it's 6 months and not a sniff of food before then.

Over here it's slightly different - the guidelines are that you should offer fruit and veg from 4 months and basically see how it goes. If they seem interested and eat it, then lovely, but if they don't, then just hold off until they do.

We're recommended that by 6 months they should be off purees totally and should be on mashed or lumpy food and after 6 months anything goes (save honey, nuts etc). The 4-6 month period is just for introducing new tastes and textures really.