Baby Led Weaning

[TheDevilWearsPrimark]

Enough of this argumentative chat and one upmanship.

My DD has fairly poor hand eye coordination, can't tell a spoon from a rattle etc.
We have started weaning her on purees, and that is what we feel comfortable with and what is right for her.
Fair enough some of your children were sitting upright at 7 months and able to grasp and eat finger foods without choking but that is not the same for everyone.

Stop your militant interruption onto every thread linking to BLW websites. Some babies cannot handle it, and some mothers are not comfortable with it. Surely your 'prophecy' is about it being easy and free for thebaby and the mother, so please just get out of our faces.

That's exactly the point. The problem is that sometimes when I read the BLW threads, it came across that some posters were arguing that BLW was the ONLY way. As you say, it isn't, and it doesn't suit all babies. There is no right or wrong method to weaning (assuming here that the foods you are using are healthy and suitable). Different babies develop differently, and some will be ready for BLW, some won't. Some will prefer a spoon, some won't. Just as I like tea and DH likes coffee. It doesn't mean one of us is wrong, or needs to be shouted down.

Twinklemegan, just read your entry further down. You said what I'm trying to say in one sentence:

"whatever baby wants is "baby-led", be that spooning, finger food or a mixture."

Thank you, you are very wise.

I shout people down, Enid?

go on then, hit the archives, find me an example of me saying BLW is the only way, saying it's the best way, saying anything to actively put down anyone doing purees. you won't find it. i don't feel it.

No you have never openly criticised anyone who purees. And you often say that it is everyones personal choice how to feed their baby. That is great and I can see you are very careful not to push BLW down peoples throats. I wouldn't agree that you jump on people who puree feed either.

But there is a feeling of militancy about the BLW boards - a lot of people really, genuinely don't get it. Don't get the obsession about never spoon feeding mush. Have expressed concern about the lack of scientific data. Have tried to give examples of where it hasn't worked for them. And to be honest if anyone posts about BLW in a negative light the reaction is that we are being deliberately obtuse, or not doing it properly, or trying to be argumentative for the sake of it. It IS getting a bit like a cult! And the spooning thing...well it did seem that six months ago you couldnt do BLW and spoon feed runny stuff, and now you can! So that doesnt make it any easier to understand.

As far as i'm concerned it's just what people have been doing along side spoon feeding for years but has now been given a wanky name. it's like those wnaky baskets that are selling for a bomb on ebay with a wooden spoon and a sponge in them people have been giving children pots, pans and spoons to play with for years but now it's called heuristic play and another way for people to make money and good on them too.

I just think all the babies are different and what works for one wont necessarily work for the other. I spoon fed ds but then he also weaned very early. DD1 I did half and half and she was 6.5mths old. DD2 is just 5mths and not weaned yet but tries to snaffle anything on a plate[yesterday while out with the liverpool lot she was trying to eat green pepper from my salad].

Ignore the lack of punctuation and capitals in my last post!

pmsl le looks like one of my normal posts!!

it didn't seem like you couldn't because that's not what was said, it may have seemed like you don't need to. every single other piece of literature in the known world talks about spoon feeding, every single one, so the spoons are a big point of diversification.

however, if you'd been doing BLW you'd likely have taken the time to read up on it, in cluding the webchat that ruddynorah linked to on the other thread, so any misconception about spoons and spooning would have been resolved well in advance of starting weaning. plus, i'm always at pains to poiint out that there aren't any rules anyway, so people must do what they and their baby want. it's just that a baby who wasn't picking up food and eating it would be left to not pick up food and eat it, if you were 'doing' BLW. for three months, if necessary and assuming there wasn't a medical reason to do otherwise.

many parents wouldn't be comfortable doing that, i can't say whether i would or not, personally, as it wasn't my situation, so they start using spoons or whatever. fine, if that makes everyone happy, that's great. it's not BLW (caps), but of course they feel that they've been led by their child. i've said a thousand times that i think BLW is a poxy name and Baby Self Feeding would be better. i think it's the name that causes half the battles.

i acknowledged that i had some sympathy for TDWP's feelings in my first post to her, hence the fact that i've always been so cautious myself. but to suggest that it's a cult, to suggest that anyone, but particularly me, has said that it's the only way, well, that's bollocks, quite frankly.

i am hugely, unutterably, teeth-grindingly, hair-tearingly careful about how i express myself on the subject of weaning and i deeply, deeply resent being singled out on this. as someone who never managed to bf i am well aware of how an ill-chosen word can sting, even when it so clearly comes from a good-hearted person. would that everyone else tried to be so aware of how their words might be taken, on both sides of this non-argument...

"Have expressed concern about the lack of scientific data." To be honest, I can't find a great deal (or any) research studies that demonstrate the necessity for pureeing either. Haven't looked that hard, did my usual hunt about on PubMed, but I think that it really hasn't been studied that much. A lot of "received wisdom" often isn't. Yes, Gill Rapley's study is small, barely a pilot, but it is interesting for those who are keen (or whose babies think that spoons are not the way to go). I suppose it all depends on where you think research funding should go - I honestly don't think I'm risking my daughter's health by doing BLW, so am not fussed that there have been no follow-up studies, but some people may want more evidence.

To those who want "scientific evidence" - what do you want evidence of?

Aitch, my lovely, dont rise to it.

There's no constructive criticism on here for you to answer to.

You do a fab job of answering folks questions and queries. I am a little gobsmacked that people are attacking you for being aggressive. That's not what I see in your posts.

Seems that MN is no longer a place people can be passionate about issues close to their heart for fear of upsetting people. So many folk want to dampen spirit on here, and put a negative spin on things. I can see why Hunker and a few others are taking a break.

Seems apathy has crept in and become the 'standard', lately.

Scientific evidence that their way is better than another I think welliemum.

damn, been out for the day and missed all of the fuss. Hey ho.

I think - at least for me - the point about scientific evidence is that there is this feeling on the boards that BLW is 'superior', and yet the evidence for this is pretty limited.

I'm sure it's not harming anyone's children, and I'm sure no one believes this. But - as I said below - it's getting to the stage that I don't feel that I can ask anything about purees on the boards without people jumping on me. If there was some evidence for this, then great, but the jury is very much out, so I do rather resent being jumped on.

Perhaps we should have a BLW board and a purees board...

[meandmymonkey - hello! not writing, but moving house. I will do it someday. But you're probably wandered off my now...]

OK, but what does "better" mean, or "superior"?

Genuine question, if people can define what they want to know in a specific way, it can probably be tested by designing a study.

I thought Gill Rapley had done some minor studies, or at least made some BLW observations on studies related to weaning generally?

Interesting question. I think that advocates of BLW would argue that it gives children control over food and so are less likely to have issues later with this, which is testable. And possibly that it improves fine motor co-ordination. (although earlier posts suggest that only babies with better fine motor co-ordination BLW anyway, so might be self-selecting). And that allowing babies to feed themselves doesn't impact on growth rates or vitamin intake etc.

I think the last one of those would answer my questions to some degree as well.

I think, the general hypothesis is also that a baby's gut is 'ready' for weaning, this will be mirrored in their motor skills and co-ordination. Thus, if they can pick up food and stick it in their mouth and chew it, they are ready for it.

Yes, and actually I don't have a problem with this idea at all. It just that I don't think this means that she has to feed herself all her foods, if that makes sense

Well of course, you know your baby best. If she is feeding herself finger foods, then I dont see why you wouldnt want to spoon feed her some yoghurt or something.

I think, and I may have this wrong, that the 'issue' with spoons is not so much spoon feeding fullstop. It is that spoon feeding enables a baby to have solids possibly before they are ready.

Couldn't agree with you more. But I'm also serving her quite a lot of purees on a spoon too.

The problem I have with BLW is that we're quite an allergenic family, so we're not doing wheat or dairy until 12 months, which severely limits the finger foods I can serve (and means she's not eating what we eat), so mixed purees tend, I think, to be much more interesting foods for her. It's either that or ricecakes and veg sticks, and six months of that's enough to put anyone off food.

But - and I will keep saying this - i feel that i'm not supposed to ask about purees on here. So much so that I keep justifying myself.

Thanks twocats. I'll have a think about this.

Just off the top of my head, the "self-selecting" thing is the biggest problem.

For example: having issues with food. Parents who are happy to sit back and let a baby feed themselves and not stress about how little the baby is eating are already on the more relaxed end of the spectrum. So these children are growing up in a household that is relaxed about food, and that's going to have quite a big impact, which could be hard to separate from how the child physically ate as a baby.

Improving co-ordination - I agree, it's self selecting and even if true, I doubt it has more than a transient impact on the child's abilities. (I don't see a lot of people making this claim for BLW, actually). You could measure a child's ability to pick up peas at X age, but you probably wouldn't learn anything useful.

The nutritional side of things is interesting, and I think you could break it down into questions like, do they grow differently, do they get different amounts of calories or vitamins from food.

Growth is tricky of course, because no-one knows how a baby is supposed to grow ideally (and obviously there's a big individual variation too). There's some evidence now that rapid growth in infancy can lead to complications in adult life, ie that you can't assume that babies who grow quicker are healthier.

The only reliable way to test BLW vs puree feeding would be to randomise but I just don't see how you could do that, because it would completely remove the choice from the parents, and I doubt if anyone would sign up to that study - I wouldn't have.

(VVV, I think the studies so far have been very small and observational - showing that BLW works, but without showing that it's "better").

Indeed welliemum, observations made in other related studies as i said further down.

I dont think anyone has said it is better than purees, more that it is considered more naturally attuned with development - as per my last few posts.

Purees are not bad. I dont think anyone has said that purees are bad.

I have to say though, having spent a great deal of time pureeing, I can say with complete honesty that it is more of a faff than giving finger food, unless it was pureeing something I was having that excluded the usual allergy related foods. Unless of course the puree comes out of a jar . Which also is NOT bad.........[hard stare]

Sorry, missed your earlier one VVVQV.

Yes, I agree, I don't think people are saying BLW is better, but twocats and others are criticising the lack of evidence, ie as I understand it, they're wanting to be shown that it's better before they will accept it.

I think (summary of rambly previous post) that there's not much likelihood of getting a study up and running, because it would be very difficult to design an meaningful study.

A qualititative study of parents' experiences certainly would be possible, and MN would be the place to recruit - maybe we should think about this?

My own feeling is that BLW isn't something which needs to be tested. It's better for me: I've done pureeing with dd1 and BLW with dd2 and there's no contest as far as I can see - and that's as much as I need to know. And I'm quite fanatical about checking evidence for things that I do in other spheres.

I would be very surprised btw if there's any impact on health for either pureeing or BLW.

A baby who's not eating much food will compensate by drinking more milk, and up to the age of a year, that's not a concern. People talk about iron a lot, but interestingly, although there's variation in how much iron babies take in, it doesn't seem to have an effect on their wellbeing. (In developed countries - it's different in developing countries).