IS Food really just for fun before 1?

[Kmxxx14]

I hear this a lot but I'm not sure whether it's accurate or not. I remember with my son (now 5) he was on 3 meals a day by 1 years old - it certainly wasn't just for fun.

What is too far down the BLW and waiting road? I've just started weaning DS2, who has been EBF up till now (bar the first 3 weeks or so where he was having occasional formula due to being unwell). I waited till 6 months to start weaning as he wasn't really sitting quite well enough up until then. He's self feeding and really keen on eating. Judging by the nappy output he's consuming a decent amount of solids. I give him a multivitamin which also has iron.

Do you think that's ok? The reason I'm now worried is that he was severely anaemic at birth and had to have a blood transfusion immediately. Do you this would have buggered up his iron stores?

Assassinated from a completely non-medical "mum to mum" perspective I think that sounds fine! But as you've mentioned a specific medical history (and logically I can see why you'd wonder) it wouldn't hurt to run it past your HV.

epoxy I haven't read all of the blog yet but I have a very different understanding of food is for fun. I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that you don't offer solids, just that it's not essential to rush the Weaning process.

Like I said earlier, it's our job to offer a variety of interesting foods, it's up to them if they chose to eat it.

I haven't seen anyone on here suggest that anyone should delay offering foods past 6 months.

I haven't said a word about what anyone else on here has said - I didn't write the blog - I just said i agreed with it! And what with it being about the exact same phrase I thought it was, you know, relevant. That's all.

I know you didn't say it epoxy but I thought it was implied as you posted a blog that equates the phrase with delayed Weaning and then said you agreed with the blog

The condition he had at birth is really rare, so tbh I doubt the HV would know much about it. None of the ones I met in the first few weeks had ever heard of it. I should have asked the consultant last time I saw them. Although the fact they didn't ask me much beyond "is weaning going ok?" probably means I shouldn't worry!

No, not delayed weaning really, just I did meet a few mums so committed to "pure" BLW that they literally did NOTHING beyond presenting food to their nearly-1-year-olds by way of encouragement. Obviously there's no judgement in that, I just wonder if the phrase was perhaps misleading in their cases -although I'm sure their kids turned out just fine. Honestly I was gearing up to be a die-hard crunchy mum, self feed or no feed!, but circumstances conspired against me and I had to spoon it in on occasion too. No regrets :)

That's what I do though, just put food in front of DS2 and leave him to it, bar rescuing stuff that's escaped and putting it back on the tray. It's what I did with DS1 as well. Is that very extreme?

What is crunchy?

We did BLW with DC2 but only because the little sod screamed blue murder if a spoon ever went near.

Don't get me wrong, self feeding is great! I imagine most babies get stuck right in and like your ds Assassinated get on just fine like that :) I just think the phrase sometimes misleads parents whose babies perhaps don't take to self-feeding in any meaningful way, and leads them to think there is no other form of encouragement they MAY want to try because food isn't a big deal. And it's that "may" that's key, because perhaps if someone told them the time your baby's one food really IS quite important they would then have the CHOICE in how they approached weaning.

I don't think I'd leave it till nearly 12 months if DS wasn't showing any interest in self feeding, I'd definitely try another approach before then. Fortunately I seem to breed mini-hoovers who get stuck in straight away!

Mine's a mini hoover too, just unfortunately one who's allergic to damn near everything! He had to get used to food pretty sharpish because when I went back to work at 7 months he was NOT impressed with expressed milk and there wasn't a single formula-substitute that he could or WOULD drink! They are bloody disgusting though

What do you suggest as the alternative epoxy? As I understand it, the current guidelines were introduced to slow down the rush to cram solids into babies. In the city I grew up in, it's common to feed babies sterilised milk instead of formula, to start solids at 12 weeks (I've heard of 6) and to stop all milk by 4 months.

I'm not setting myself up as some know-it-all weaning guru here, most importantly cos I'm not one! I just think the"food before one..." phrase is a bit shit, and I agree with that blog entry. That is all :)

I'm not setting myself up as some know-it-all weaning guru ok but that blog post has some pretty strong views and doesn't seem to offer solutions.

I'm afraid it's not for me to provide the answers you're looking for from someone else.

Obviously starting solids at 6 or 12 weeks is crazy. Personally, I also agree with that blog post. If you wean at 6 months you need to move relatively quickly. I often read of babies on here who are 9 months old or older and still only having tastes or playing with food and taking in very little. I don't think that's right. From 6 months they do start to need some food.

Yes. One of my least favoured memes of all time. I mean, ok that it does help reduce parents freaking out about getting vast quantities of food in before they are just a few months old... but imho it's just factually WRONG. Food before 1 is important for a) fun b) nutrition c) learning to eat skills (apparently, a critical window following which they don't as easily learn the techniques distinct from suckling and can then be more likely to get food aversion etc).

I do know folks who were so bought into this idea and related ones (like that breast milk is so perfect that the longer your baby went without any other form of nutrition the better) that they thought children didn't need ANY food beyond bm till they were 2 (years). I've read of families not offering anything to 9, 10 months because they believe that preserves "virgin gut" etc.

Thankfully most babies are sensible and tend to just grab whatever they see and this sends a pretty clear signal to parents they are ready to eat.

A recent UNICEF report on infant feeding highlighted that worldwide, a third of babies are introduced to solid food too late and don't have the minimum solid food diversity to complement breast milk

data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/infant-and-young-child-feeding/#

There is also an excellent who book on guiding principles for complementary feeding of breastfed babies www.who.int/nutrition/publications/guiding_principles_compfeeding_breastfed.pdf which highlights the nutritional importance of solid food from 6 months - says around 200 calories a day would typically need to come from solids from 6-8 months and increasing after that. And the author says

"Because of the rapid rate of growth and development during the first two years of life, nutrient needs per unit body weight of infants and young children are very high. Breast milk can make a substantial contribution to the total nutrient intake of chil- dren between 6 and 24 months of age, particularly for protein and many of the vitamins. However, breast milk is relatively low in several minerals such as iron and zinc, even after accounting for bioavailability. At 9-11 months of age, for example, the proportion of the Recommended Nutrient Intake that needs to be supplied by complementary foods is 97% for iron, 86% for zinc, 81% for phosphorus, 76% for magnesium, 73% for sodium and 72% for calcium (Dewey, 2001)."

Given this, I think the "food before 1 is just for fun" is deeply wrong and unscientific.