Does baby really need lots more iron at 6 months?

[HeidiHole]

My HV is of the feeding at 4 months is fine persuasion (separate issue lets let that one slide for the moment)

I've told her I'm planning on waiting to 6 months to start and she said that's fine, as long as though if I wait till then I know I really have to start then (ie don't leave it any later) because at 6 months they need a lot more iron/nutrients.

However I read a few time that food is for fun until a year? Anyone have any sources for either statement?

I think I'd also heard something about baby iron levels at 6 months so which is correct? Is food essential OR fun?

Baby is currently formula fed.

As I understand it, babies iron supply that they got from you at birth starts to run out around 6mths so they need it from other sources. But formula is supplemented with iron so dont think you need to worry as much as if you were breastfeeding (which I did before anyone starts getting upset!). I think most sources agree you need to wean 'faster' if you start at 6 as opposed to 4 months.

They don't need more iron, just that the amount they can get from milk starts to not be enough. Slowly. If you are not anaemic, and bfing on demand, you'd be unlikely to meet any issues

You are spot on. Have a read of Why Delay Solids on Kellymom. From memory it says that if you leave weaning to say 7 months then your LO is likely to have higher iron levels at 12 months than peers that were weaned earlier.

If you are bfing just keep feeding on demand and if you are ff it is fine to stay with first milk until 12 months, then you can swap over to full fat cows milk.

You might also find this article on iron interesting too .

Interesting article. So why do the NHS worry about dropping iron levels at 6mths?

very interesting articles jilted thank you.

That's ok, just hope its managed to answer some of your questions .

However I read a few time that food is for fun until a year? Anyone have any sources for either statement? I would love to see some evidence for this oft-quoted statement too.

The Kellymom website, though great with lots to do with breastfeeding, is a bit out of date wrt weaning advice. Lots of the benefits listed with exclusive bfing are the same with partial bfing and solids - i.e. baby still gets antibodies etc. The allergies info is controversial too. There is an emerging body of evidence that shows exposure to foods at 6+ months may increase allergies, so many organisations are going back to 4-6 month recommendation.

The iron issue is a valid question and I worried a lot about this (my DS was premature so was born with a heck of a lot less iron than a full termer + bf). When I brought this up at my 5 month meeting, the pead said, does he look anemic? Does he lack energy? I said no - she said, no reason to worry then . I don't think you have any reason to worry tbh.

too. There is an emerging body of evidence that shows exposure to foods at 6+ months may increase allergies, so many organisations are going back to 4-6 month recommendation. have you got any links to the evidence BFG?

There's a lot. Look on google scholar. Here's one or two to start you off.

I think a lot of the delay culture came from people weaning too early i.e. before 4 months and studies showing this was linked to allergies. So people thought, later the better. This precautionary approach persists. The story of allergies is complex though and not exactly conclusive, which is why I refer to a 'growing body of evidence'. I know this is only a BBC article, but they say the 2000 WHO recommendations were based on only 17 studies, 33 were inconclusive.