IS food fun til they're one?

[vmcd28]

I've asked HVs, a midwife, a doctor, a dietician and various friends. I also did a lot of googling.
ds was losing weight so I needed to know whether substituting some formula for more calorific/less filling foods would do him harm. I really can't find anything much to back up this statement. In fact, the dietician said that yes, babies should have at least a pint of formula a day, but they should be eating LOADS of solids.

Does anyone have any evidence that food is "for fun" til babies are one...?

I only have one who is now 10MO. I have had days when she has had 3 meals a day and snacks and not slept through. I have had other days when she has had breakfast, skipped lunch and dinner and slept through (still had normal milk feeds obviously). This was during periods when she wasn't teething and before seperation anxiety kicked.

Thanks for your comment. It's a misleading phrase, though, implying that food isn't really necessary, and I have seen loads of people on here throwing the phrase around to suggest that if your baby doesn't enjoy eg fruit, that it's nothing to worry about because the baby doesn't need it. The problem being that a baby should be encouraged to eat lots of different things so their palate gets used to and enjoys flavour and texture.
I'm not sure if I'm making sense. :)

I don't think it is misleading. I took it to mean that if until the age of 1 my DC skips a meal or just plays with her food then it's not the end of the world as milk is still giving her what she needs. Your right vmcd28 in that a baby should be presented with lots of different flavours textures etc but there shouldn't be any pressure there as the first year is more about exploration....although I reiterate I only have 1 and am still learning myself!

But it is misleading if a large proportion of people who quote it do so incorrectly.
I completely agree with you about what it means, but many people read it as meaning stgh different

This is an interesting question and one I have thought about as DD is 6.5 mo and just starting solids.

Milk may be nutritionally complete until 1, but what would a baby be 'like' if fed nothing but milk until 1? Weight/comfort/development wise? I suspect that whilst milk may be nutritionally complete (as in contain everything they need, calories, protein, vitamins wise), it might be quite hard to take on a sufficient quantity of milk to sustain a bigger/heavier 11 mo.

And yes experiencing tastes/textures etc. is really the point at this stage, but is still important in its own right.

D

Deliaskis, my HV said pretty much that to me this week, that while milk is nutritionally complete it gets harder and harder for the baby to drink enough to sustain them and also to get the iron that is in finite supply in the baby's liver. Not impossible, clearly, as there are plenty of babies out there who wean onto solids late (potentially including my DD).

(disclaimer, I know that HV advice is taken with a pinch of salt around these parts - in fact I'm doing the same, I'm just saying what she said for info purposes)

I should say we're BLW and am bought into the concept, but AFAIK there's not really sufficient data out there about this approach (which is why the HV are largely obliged to support traditional weaning). There is a good amount of circumstantial evidence, though, that suggests BLW babies do brilliantly with food in the long run and while often taking longer to get to 3 good meals certainly aren't malnourished.

I was wanting to do BLW, but I've found that ds2 would eat finger foods such as rice cakes ALL DAY til he's sick if I let him. And he needs encouragement to eat certain other things, even if he's clearly hungry, so we went off the BLW theory.
I've read a lot that states a baby only has sufficient iron/vitamin stores to last til 6m, then it starts to deplete, hence why HVs tell a lot of people that babies should get a vitamin supplement after 6m, and hence why solids need introduced