Am I the only one who thinks baby led weaning is a stupid idea?

[chocablock]

www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/mar/14/familyandrelationships

It seems as if everyone is doing BLW apart from me. What happened to the tried and tested traditional mashing up your baby's food and feeding it to them with a spoon? OK maybe let them play around with their own spoon a bit to get into practise but basically make sure they eat the food!!!Is there anyone else who thinks blw is new fangled stupidity? Or am I just a voice in the wildreness and hopelessly old fashioned?? :)

I think also you may be missing the meaning of "finger food" it just means food that is eaten with the fingers, not any special in "finger form". DD2 feeds herself on the same shepherd's pie (mince and mash) that the rest of us eat using her fingers quite happily nothing is in some strange "finger form".

I have the opposite problem to most people. My kids eat everything. Literally everything. fussy eaters? Nope, never had that problem! I have on occassion, tried to create the hotest curry and the most chilli filled dish, just for me and dh to enjoy together, And those two gannets still polish it off. Nothing is sacred. From an early age they were shovelling in as much food as possible on a spoon. or by hands. Even my mum commented that they needed to slow down. They refuse nothing, eat everything. tis very expensive. both skinny as a rake.
Maybe thats where i went wrong. Maybe I should have tried pure blw?

nice bit of stealth boasting there, oblomov.

Thanks Aitch. Stealth boasting? I don't think so. In-and-amongst all my other f**k ups as a parent. The fact they both eat like gannets is probaly the only decent things achieved, and little to do with ME, I fear.

Maybe we should just call it - wait for it - weaning!

Everyone has a different way of parenting and all these bloody terms just get in the way. Why not just call it weaning? Why baby led? Why single it out?

I get that some people don't want to give their kids a spoon, I get that some people can't be arsed to puree, what I don't get is why the boasting that one way is better than the other or why you cannot spoon feed when you're in a hurry or when it's convenient and give finger food or curry/pasta whatever for them to eat with their fingers when you have time for that.

Why does it really matter?

Yes I have a problem with kids choking due to my experience with my 2yo. He didn't have a gagging reflex then, he just collapsed. I can understand the concerns other parents have about choking and I would never dismiss them, they are real fears and yes babies have choked on things stuck in their throats, depending on the gagging reflex is not enough. I personally think all parents should do a basic first aid training, puree or BLW.

I also have a problem with people who insult others because of their parenting choices. I don't really see any evidence of that on this thread, but the implication that your arguments are any less valid or are ill-informed or laughable is extremely bad manners. Parents have enough shit thrown at them (and not just by their children) in life without other parents turning on them and telling them that they are doing it all wrong.

but, Rhubarb, you know why it was called baby-led weaning... because Gill Rapley wrote a paper talking about non-puree weaning and that's what she called it. it was to distinguish it from the prevailing type of weaning at the time (that of AK). so that was weaning when she wrote the paper (and AK has the mansions to prove it) and this is distinct from that.

reading all sorts of inferences and insults into the fact that a woman with 25 years of experience as a Health Visitor, then Depute Director of the Unicef Baby-Friendly Initiative, took a special interest in weaning because of all the problems she'd seen during her career with children who wouldn't eat, well, it's a waste of your time at the very least. she was just looking for a better way that might cause fewer problems and she chose a crappy name... so shoot her.

time will tell whether it is better or not, of course, and it's not something that you are in any position at all to dictate on, but at 6 months 94% of babies are capable of self-feeding, so personally i see no reason to prevent them. (and FWIW i would stake my life that BLW has caused more parents than ever before to do infant resus courses, that's certainly what my HV told me. People clearly had a false sense of security with puree etc, but that does not exist with BLW.)

and i am sure you are a wonderful parent, Oblomov, even if you are prepared to burn your children's mouths in order to get time alone with your husband.

Could I possibly take advantage of all the collective weaning experience on this thread (baby led or otherwise) to ask a slightly stupid question about drinks?

Ds is just over 6 months, and when I am there to give him his meals, which is most of them at the moment, I breastfeed him before or after or both (or occasionally in the middle if things have got really chaotic). However I am increasingly going out to do bits of freelance work and leaving dp to feed him for the odd meal here and there, and am not sure quite what we should be doing about milk/water. Should he have water to drink during his meal, and if so does it still need to be boiled? Or should he only be having formula/ebm at this stage?

i was well onto formula by that point and iirc gave teh babies water at mealtimes (which they either took or didn't take, didn't seem to be rhyme or reason). wasn't boiling it after six months but then started again as cryptosporidium levels were high round our way and they kept giving alerts for old and young.

Zeph, I gave plain tapwater with meals from 6 months, but only bf at other times. I gave milk an hour before meals which is what Kellymom suggests to ensure that solids are a complement to milk, not a substitute for it at this stage.

Thanks, aitch. Must have been scary about the cryptosporidium. Did you do a formula feed before each meal or after?

Ah thanks, angeldog

we were pretty easy-oasy, generally wrt mealtimes i just fed them formula when they were hungry, then went to get lunch/dinner together and by the time it was done they were 'hungry' for solids. as in not ravenous, but keen to have a shot. dd1 was a tremendous eater from day dot, dd2 less so (but then she was prem so who knows when she should have got going) but i never worried about any of it. both are good wee eaters now, each with their quirks but not problematic.

Zeph - I would give him a bottle later in the afternoon and one before bed with dinner in the middle. With dinner I'd give him a sippy cup with water in (I actually always have one available for them from around that age).

I use boiled water if it's there & at a convenient temperature, bottled on occasion if out (check sodium levels) or tap.

Zeph - why do you bf before a meal? I think it's good not to so that they start to understand that food makes them not hungry anymore as well. It takes them a while to 'get' that - but to me, bf beforehand confuses the issue more... just interested in your view.

Thanks, chipping. I have mostly been trying to bf before solids (although it has been a bit random) because I thought this was recommended on the grounds that they should at this stage be getting most of their nutrition from milk. Now that I'm starting to spend longer periods away from him I'm keen to make sure there's some sort of plan for whoever is looking after him. He's not hugely keen on bottles yet though so have to crack that one next.

The really stupid thing is that I've done all this before, but it was 6 years ago and I just can't remember.

:)

He'll be better at taking bottles from other people, so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

Fair enough why you feed him before a meal, but to me it's a bit like having a milkshake with a meal - all too filling at one time, but much appreciated to top up after or well beforehand :)

I think it probably just delays their interest in food a bit - but I don't think it actually matters much at all which way you do it - by the time they're 2 they're all doing much the same thing!

Yes, Kellymom recommends bf an hour before foods so that they don't fill up too much with solids. BM is supposed to be the majority of babies nutrition until 12 months (according to the WHO) so until then solid food is largely about giving supplementary benefits eg vitamins, minerals, rather than replacing milk as the main form of calories.

Kelllymom has some info about why bf should be offered before solids, and some pointers as to the situations in which you might want to offer solids first.

The WHO recommend that even between 12 and 24 months, BM should constitute a third of children's nutrition.

Aitch, I didn't know that, I haven't done that much research into BLW other than reading forums and blogs about it.

What got my goat is when those who advocated BLW on here and elsewhere simply did not make for compromises.

For instance, not every parent is that organised and I would find BLW very restrictive. What do you do when eating out? If you fancied a Pizza Hut you are not going to give an 8 month old pizza are you? So what, do you get out a carefully prepared meal from the freezer and defrost it? Or do you get out a quick jar that you bought for emergenices? And would you then allow your 8 month old to decorate the restaurant with his fingers? Or would you use a spoon for the sake of convenience? Same goes for holidays, visiting people etc.

Yes I can understand the thinking behind it, but it's taken too far imho. It's great to be able to tell people that they don't have to puree food if they don't want to and that they can allow the baby to try and feed himself if they don't mind the mess, but to tell parents that if they use a spoon every now and then they are not practising true BLW is just ridiculous. It's fine as an idea in itself, but not when people boast about advantages that are simply not there. BLW has no proven advantages over spoon feeding. There ARE clear advantages of letting babies have finger food and most parents already do that, but I disagree that spoon feeding is force feeding as some BLW literature implies.

Most parents spoon feed when convenient and offer finger food at other times and it's great to let them know the benefits of finger food. But I think that a mixture of these feeding methods is absolutely fine and it's naff to say otherwise.

I didn't depend on the gagging reflex. I was just aware that gagging, while it looks uncomfortable, is actually harmless and doesn't bother babies. If DS gagged, which wasn't often, he would just do it then carry on chewing as if nothing had happened. I never left him alone when he was eating and, knowing that choking is silent, I didn't turn my back on him.

Yes, I did an infant resus course. Our local children's centre organised a superb one for £3 per person. I would have done it if I was traditionally weaning as well.

I pureed the first time round and after discovering what a complete and utter bastard it was at taking up my life and preventing me from having enough ice for my Gin as all of the sodding icecube trays were filled with sodding mush, I BLWd the second time.

So for lazy, gin drinkers like me, BLW was the better choice.

My DS had had pizza before he was 8 months old - I'm not sure why you wouldn't except possibly for concerns about salt, which wouldn't bother me at a one-off meal. I never really had problems with mess out & about, even when we had a week's fully-catered holiday when DS was 6.5 m.o. He was always in a high chair so couldn't get mess on anything other than that and the floor. If I felt sensitive I'd just take his floor mess mat with us. Same with visiting other people.

I did BLW because I didn't have to be organised.

BLW = self-feeding, so if you're spoonfeeding sometimes then by definition it's not BLW since the child isn't self-feeding. That's just a statment of fact, not a value judgement. Nowt wrong with doing mostly BLW with some spoonfeeding if you want to.

I agree that the term BLW is less than ideal. It seems to suggests that spoon feeding by definition isn't baby-led, which isn't true. And in the US it's really confusing since weaning is about stopping breastfeeding, not starting solids. But it's the label that's stuck, so I guess we have to live with it.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that spoons are incompatible with BLW. Plenty of 'BLW'ers' (for want of a better term) give their children food on a spoon, they tend just wait for the child to lunge at the spoon to show they want it, or give the child a pre-loaded spoon with which to self-feed.

I think what you're saying is that you agree with Aitch that there is plenty of middle ground between the oddballs few people who think that any spoonfeeding = force feeding and those who think that baby self-feeding = a stupid idea. I would agree. :)

Concern about salt content is one of the things that has stopped me going down the purely blw route. And the spices. Obviously it's perfectly possible to cut out the salt from your cooking with a little planning, except where you are using very salty ingredients like feta cheese or capers etc, but I always seem to be cooking something unsuitable and it all seemed a bit much to get my brain around, so ds has some of our food if happens to be unsalted - usually vegetables - but most of the time I'm too anxious about whether it's OK for his rather new stomach and kidneys.

(By the way ds, like dd before him, always takes the spoon and guides it into his own mouth. Or doesn't, in which case I know he's had enough. Does this make it baby led? Actually I'm beginning to realise that I may just not be a very effective spoonfeeder.)

HaHaHa babyheave

Reminds me of the post I read recently on another thread about not getting a pram because it wouldn't fit in the boot of her Porsche !!

We already cooked everything without salt so that wasn't a problem for us. DS liked spicy food from the start although he can't have many spicy things now as a toddler as it aggravates the eczema on his face which means we eat a smaller variety of foods than we used to. I think lots of BLW families (and spoonfeeding ones too I expect) find that weaning means they have to start cooking more healthily for all the family.

I'd say that sounds like baby-led spoonfeeding that you're doing, Zephirine. :)

TBH, I did BLW out of necessity -it really was baby led! DD (now 13 months) totally, point-blank refused a spoon for 4 weeks... every day I tried yummy homemade puree and not once could I get the spoon in her mouth. She clamped shut and turned her head. Incidentally, she also totally refused a bottle, despite me trying with expressed milk every day for 2 months from 6 weeks.

Out of desparation, i tried BLW. DD ate 3 meals on her first day of being allowed to feed herself with normal, adult food (made without salt).

Its probablt pure chance, but she now eats totally normally (with a fork), anything from pasta, to a roast, to a curry.

So, back to the OP's question. I would strongly suggest that BLW is NOT a stupid idea, but there may be others like you who do....! But I doubt there are many who have tried BLW (by the way, I agree its not a great "term") and who continue to think its stupid. Aside from the fact that DD wouldn't eat puree, having done BLW, i have discovered that it enabled me to have about 2 more hours free every day more than pureeing mothers simply because I coooked totally normal food but without salt and DD and I ate the same thing! Also, I am not too paranoid about her having normal, restaurant food (yes, I have let her have pizza hut-type stuff, and yes at 8 months I should have thought - I can't remember!) one in a blue moon when we go out. Its about once every month, so I really don't think its a drama.

This may be a tad controversial, but I don't get letting babies eat sloppy food such as spag sauce with their hands, it seems a bit counter intuitive, as adults at it with an implement - spoon or fork or both, and you need to get them used to the idea of eating with implements, so I load spoons, fed at first and now let him put spoon in himself, or every other spoon. Teaching them to eat only with hands means you then have to get them to eat with cutlery later and they would then be peeved and want to carry on eating with hands, surely? I can see the point of them eating a stew with big chunks with hands and then bread to mop up sauce but why only use fingers? As some parents seem to do?