strong views frol Gill Rapley

[belgo]

Not sure how I feel about her comments that pureed food could cause health problems in later life.

here

Just had a look, they're saying mashed or chopped, with finger foods as a seperate thing.

Mind you, says to try weaning when the baby can sit, pick up food and put it in its mouth and wants to chew.

Then you give it a puree

Message withdrawn

Weaning with purees doesn't necessarily mean any jars at all. My DSs have both been weaned on pureed food (although having read a lot of the BLW stuff, DS2 had a lot more lumps and finger foods much earlier than DS2). DS2 has never had a jar of food. Neither is fussy at all, I think I am just lucky to have 2 children who like food - inherited??!! IME, being fussy is little to do with how you wean as a single factor. That's far too simplistic.

VVV, jars for "hungrier toddlers" - good business idea??

most babies eat anything IME

its when they get to 3 the shit hits the fan

I think the "[icky" thing is a bit of a red herring.
I am far more interested in the notion that BLW might encourage children to regulate their appetites better. which rally would be an advantage.
at the very simplest level, getting parents to butt out during feeding is a good start. putting control of eating in the hands of the person eating can only lead to better habits, is the way I see it.

I hope Gill Rapley isn't including her research for her thesis in the "sound scientific research" - from how I understand it there was a very small group of children involved, no control group of babies given purees and finger food (the puree only group were being developmently delayed - even AK says offer finger foods at 6 months) and no follow up as to the eating habits of the children beyond the 9 months (did the delayed group catch up with their motor skills, are they picky eaters, do they suffer more allergies, etc?). So really the only conclusion she could draw is 8 and 9 month olds can eat food with their fingers if they are used to being offered it.

Re. allergies and babies avoiding food they are allergic to. They can only choose from what is being offered to them. I don't think BLW addresses this. People might be offering their children eggs, tomatoes, wheat when they would best be avoided.

Re. constipation - I'm sure I've seen this problem discussed by people doing BLW.

I would think the majority of processed foods whether for babies or adults is nutrionally poorer than 'the real thing'. I'm sure I read that she weaned her son on baked beans. Assuming they were not homemade that's only a small step away from a jar of babyfood.

Well, we're stuffed if Gill's way is the best for avoiding overeating and picky eating. Ds2 will not put anything food related in his mouth and suck or chew it so we have resorted to old fashioned weaning with spoons and he is getting better at tolerating lumps but still gags on them at 9 months.

I'm not in the least bit worried. I confidently expect him to be eating normally sometime soon maybe even before he turns 1, even if I have to put a bowl of mashed up food in front of him and let him have a go with his hands. Perhaps I should relent and let him try some chocolate mousse. What baby could resist and if I'm not obligingly spooning it for him he'd maybe give it a go with his hands although the state of the high chair doesn't bear thinking about.

The reason babies are fussy and refuse lumps is because parents are too scared to give finger foods. It really is that simple and has nothing whatsoever to do with purees. People need to learn that gagging is not choking and you can't offer ENOUGH finger foods from 6 mths (long before your baby works out that gagging is unpleasant and he gets lots of attention for doing it)

Feeding purees is a long standing practise. Before blenders, food was sieved through muslin or just mashed very finely. I can't see how anyone can it's harmful especially as it's already been pointed out, milk is where most of the nutrition comes from to start with.

For a long time the weaning age was 3-4 months and purees were all they could cope with.

I think later weaning means you don't 'have' to feed purees as a 6 month old is able to go straight to finger foods but don't think it's a problem to go either way, whatever suits the family.

Bit confused though, in another article on the same theme, it says WHO changed its guidelines because of Rapleys research? I thought WHO changed before her research came out. This article only implies it

Whatever is good for parents and babies is what these experts should be advising, not putting parenting down and making us second guess ourselves constantly

I think it is all just creating a 'science' around a tiny window of around 2 months max where some babies transition onto solids graudually using softer textured foods.

I'm not entirely convinced that the fibre component of a food is destroyed by pureeing. I would need a scientific explanation of that. Generally it is difficult to change the state of matter, and usually chopping up no matter how small doesn't do that. Otherwise, why would prune juice still have the explosive impact that it does?

The vast majority of children of today will have been weaned on to purees - and only a tiny minority of those will have food issues. That tends suggest to me, that pureeing of itself is not an indicator of whether children will be 'fussy' eaters.

Anecodotal, I know - but my DCs were weaned onto purees (home made) and they have a very wideranging palate - and have never suffered from constipation.

I do think there is an age (around 18m to 2y) where children do naturally become more fussy about what they eat. However, this is jusst a phase and the vast majority of children pass through it smoothly.

In summary, I see no burning platform - no need to change what generations of parents have adopted as the norm. Nevertheless, I cannot see BLW as being harmful, so if it floats your boat then go for it. However, I would advise, not to make a science out of something where there is no hard evidence to support your view point!

Yes, and during the periods where food was pushed through muslin, they were also rubbing hares brains on babies gums to soothe teething, didnt they aitch?

That really was a fascinating article!

Brief thing on about 5 a day

oh fgs

i thought the constipation issue was due to the amount of puree you could get into a baby, as compared to the small amount food a blw just starting out would be able to consume.

But that doesn't say anything about purees does it? Or am I looking right through it? (I do do that...)

this article was in the independent last december seems to me the others have only just jumped on the bandwagon.

I would have thought the lack of teeth and risk of choking was why purees were introduced, also cooked food is more easily digested. They really should give better reasons than just right stop we got it wrong.

Have only read the link but I think Prof. Candy's view is the one I would listen to rather than Mrs Rapley's. She seems to be a BF expert from what I've read about her but that's about it (not belittling this btw).

Lack of teeth isn't problem as gums are very hard and can deal with most food

I think purees were because weaning got earlier and earlier and younger babies can't deal with anything other than slop

Mercy - do you really trust a Dr. who appears to know nothing about the tongue trust reflex?

"He said: "Some babies could manage this, but others may not have the oromotor skills necessary to chew the food - they would just push it out of their mouths."

it's interesting, I wonder what other cultures do

well, she's a health visitor, so she has probably seen a lot more normal babies than him in her 25 years
she has more experoence

Message withdrawn

I haven't read all this thread but re other cultures - in Indonesia mothers chew up some of their own food then pop it into the baby's mouth. [vomit emoticon]

Message withdrawn