Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Weaning

Find weaning advice from other Mumsnetters on our Weaning forum. Use our child development calendar for more information.

Flip

Original poster

Which is better? Finger foods and more formula, or purees and less formula?

23 replies

Twinklemegan · 27/02/2007 22:45

It strikes me that there are some contradictory messages going out on MN . On the one hand, if you believe what you read on some threads, giving formula is tantamount to poisoning your child. On the other hand, BLW is trumpeted as a great weaning method with the justification that milk should be the main food for the first year.

Now I've chosen to go down the puree route, with some finger foods, because I'd rather my LO didn't have to have more formula than is absolutely necessary (ie the 16 to 20oz recommendation). If I was doing BLW he would get much less "proper" fresh food into him and would have to have more processed powdered milk. Please understand that I am not criticising BLW as a method, nor am I implying that formula is evil, and I am definitely not trying to spark off an argument. Nor am I asking for endorsement of my own views. But this apparent contradiction strikes me as rather interesting and I'm keen to hear other's opinions.

OP posts:

DizzyBint · 28/02/2007 09:42

not sure how best to answer this. i'll have a go..this is how i see it anyway..

with blw the idea is that the baby doesn't need much food through early weaning. then the baby gets better at feeding herself as she needs more food. the two go hand in hand.

so, to me, that means if you are spoon feeding puree you are going against this idea of babies only eating as much solid food as they are physically capable of eating themselves.

as i see it, early pureed foods (assuming veg and fruit) don't contain all the stuff a baby needs. they still need their milk, whether it be bm or formula, which is balanced to meet their needs. of course you want your baby to have more natural, unprocessed food, rather than the formula. but i do think encouraging over eating of puree as a replacement to the formula is also undesirable.

i am also hasten to add that although some blw babies take to solids slower than others, lots of babies take to it very very quickly and quickly drop milk feeds and replace them with a balanced and varied diet. perhaps more so than a baby going through step by step one taste purees then two taste purees and so on.

so hopefully that gives you my slant on it. fwiw...dd was bf upto 8 months, then onto formula as i went back to work. she's now 9 months and has only 3 small milk feeds. one when she wakes, one in the afternoon and one at bed time. so probably only about 300mls at most. she drinks water with her meals and has a good balanced diet.

cc21 · 28/02/2007 09:53

DB - not trying to be argumentative I promise. I am just a bit confused by why if I'm spoon feeding purees I might be giving more than she is physically capable of eating? I have chosen the puree route, and if DD turns her head or actually she just clamps her jaw shut then I cannot feed her more than she is capable of eating. She still determines how much she eats imo even if she isn't blw.

Twinkle - I chose purees as I was weanong DD off bf and she either refuses or is v fussy with a bottle. Was concious that she needed to get her milk intake in other ways as she wasn't getting nearly enough. I too am not a critic of blw its a fab idea but DD did gag very very badly once putting me off, and I couldn't handle the stress!!!

DizzyBint · 28/02/2007 10:06

cc21- i meant physically capable of eating as in pick up, chew and swallow. so a baby may well be able to eat puree off a spoon at 4 months, but they probably aren't able to pick up and eat a pear.

i don't think spoon feeding has to mean force feeding. but where as there is no way you can force a child to pick up a peach, it is quite easy to encourage a baby to take one more spoon full of something, or do choo choo trains to encourage, or shovel in another spoon while you distract baby with a toy..or whatever. of course not every spoon feeding mum does that, but lots do.

cc21 · 28/02/2007 10:13

Cheers Dizzy I see what you mean now .

As for choo choo trains....I have been guilty of trying them DD finds it hysterical, then clamps mouth shut when I put spoon anywhere near. I normally end up leaving her to put her hands in bowl and rub puree all over her head.....

DizzyBint · 28/02/2007 10:17

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 28/02/2007 18:08

Dizzybint - I definitely wouldn't say I was overfeeding him puree and that term is rather emotive IMO. When he's had enough he won't have any more. And it took ages before he cut down on his milk at all. In your analysis are you saying that spoon-feeding is worse than formula feeding? An interesting MN hierarchy of "badness" is emerging.

I do think the blw argument is slightly spurious in some ways. My DS is extremely dextrous for his age, but slippery pieces of pear, peach, whatever, present difficulty, even to me. There isn't endless time available to supervise him while he grazes away at finger food so a balance has to be struck. IMO, for my DS, I would feel cruel forcing him to feed himself finger food whenever he's hungry for something other than powdered milk.

Are you saying that

OP posts:

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 28/02/2007 18:09

Ignore last line sorry.

OP posts:

DizzyBint · 01/03/2007 08:47

it's a shame you see blw as a little cruel!

'slippery' fruit isn't so slippery if you keep it in big chunks and leave the skin on. you can just cut a peach in half, take the stone out and away baby goes.

PrisonerCellBlockAitch · 01/03/2007 13:13

hating the concept of an MN 'hierarchy of badness', even as a joke.

am also very uncomfortable with the notion that giving formual is tantamount to poisoning your child. i know you haven't had it easy with the whole bfing thing twinkle (nor have i) but i don't think it's right to ascribe that view as being widely touted on MN.

and i can't honestly believe that you think that people doing BLW are cruel to their children... why on earth would we want be cruel to them? we do love them, you know...

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 01/03/2007 21:23

I didn't say that though Aitch. I said that for my DS and his likes and dislikes I personally would feel a little cruel. I don't think I said that the formula thing was a widespread view either, but it is said nonetheless, and I don't believe it for a moment btw.

DB - what about choking on the skin? (You can tell that I wouldn't be cut out for blw can't you? )

As I said the last thing I want to do is cause offence. I genuinely think that there's an interesting contradiction that's all - perhaps it's just me. But one of my main reasons for being so upset that bf didn't work out was hating giving DS factory processed milk. Therefore I enjoy that he can have other wholesome food to replace some of that. I'd be giving him unprocessed cows milk to drink instead if the guidelines weren't what they are. But if I'm way off the mark then so be it - I'm fine with that honestly. [TBH my mind's all over the place at the moment having had some pretty shocking news at work, so maybe I should just quit while I'm behind]

OP posts:

AitchTwoOh · 01/03/2007 21:33

well i'll tell you something for something, then. you know jack newman, the BFing guru guy? i think i'm right in saying that he advocates early weaning instead of giving formula...
[opens can of worms] [closes can of worms]

and when they're very wee they kind of suck the flesh and leave the skin. when they start to bite into things then they eat the skin as well. honestly, dd has only ever choked on apple, nothing else.

CanSleepWeirdShifts · 01/03/2007 21:39

To answer the question in the title, finger foods and more milk. In this question I don't think it's relevant to distinguish between the types of milk given.

Obviously breastmilk is preferable, and I think that even most formula feeders accept that fact (I know that you do Aitch), but the decision about which type of milk has already been made by this point.

The fact remains that a baby should be having a minimum of 20oz of milk until they are 1 (not sure where you got the 16oz thing from?), so giving this, or more, plus finger foods is the way to go.

IMHO .

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 01/03/2007 21:41

Really? I'm going to google that one now. If anyone asks me, I never even saw the can of worms.

OP posts:

CanSleepWeirdShifts · 01/03/2007 21:42

He recommends weaning onto worms - now that's extreme!

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 01/03/2007 21:45

I'd like to know where I got it from too CanSleepWeirdShifts (love the name btw) - I think it might have been the HV . But I keep repeating it to myself because it's been really hard to get 20oz of milk into him the last week or so. We're erring on the side of caution completely with his solid food so I'm not quite sure what's going on. I am adding plenty of dairy to his food to make up for it though - that's all I can do. I can't force him to drink his milk instead of wanting other food can I?

OP posts:

CanSleepWeirdShifts · 01/03/2007 22:04

Oh no, forcing him to drink milk would def be frowned upon .

(name just temp, as dd is mucking about with her naps again, but I'm anything with initials CSWS - historically CantSleepWontSleep, which is a cool name , but less appropriate than it was)

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 01/03/2007 23:29

Yeah, I'd worked out who you really are (so to speak)

OP posts:

colditz · 01/03/2007 23:34

I hope that frantically adding formula to any food that will absorb it, and then difshing it in any form he will accept, is right.

because the little bleeder drinks on average 8 oz of formula a day. Oh well, 1 in 6 weeks.

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 01/03/2007 23:35

OP posts:

Original poster

Twinklemegan · 01/03/2007 23:36

Or even - not suggesting you give him gin to drink lol.

OP posts:

mainlymayday · 06/03/2007 20:32

Twinklemegan,
I am also a bit confused. My girl is 5 months and I will start to wean at 6 months. She is mainly bf at the moment with one bottle of formula each evening and will go onto all formula when I go back to work at six months.

As I won't be there to supervise blw (have hired a nanny but I don't know about asking her to manage blw), I am wondering whether to go the puree route instead. It sounds as though she'd get more nutrients from puree which, as she's not getting bm but only formula, sounds like a good thing. I can see if I was at home that blw might work, but as I'm not it might be too ambitious.

Interested to know if there are any working baby led weaners out there and if so, how they managed.

AitchTwoOh · 06/03/2007 21:02

MMD, just so you know, my dd was eating big chunks of sweet potato and broccolli etc etc in her first week of BLW. don't assume that they will get more vits from puree, my dd has always eaten more than her puree-fed friends. some babies take to it later but a browse through the archives here will help you to see that it is not always the case.

BizzyDint · 07/03/2007 08:58

mayday- dd goes to nursery 2 days and they are fine with blw. the way they see it dd has 'toddler' meals while the other babies have their 'baby' purees and mash. she started going aged 7 months. she's now 9 months and they are constantly telling me they can't believe how much she eats. they ask if they should limit the amount they give her. just to add, the idea of blw is that as their need for food increases, so does their ability to eat it. the two go hand in hand.

Flip