What foods are you withholding from your LO- why and how long? - Page 3

[Ecochique]

DS is 10 months old. He has not had any gluten products (we have a lot of celiacs in family), no dairy, no meat (I'm vegetarian), no nuts, no oranges or tomatoes. He just recently started eating berries, he eats lentils and loves them. We give him quinoa, spelt and kamut pasta and flakes. 

[Knitting Mama]

Originally Posted by ocelotmom 

The AAP's flip-flop on timing of introduction of solids in order to reduce allergies has me all confuzzled. My gut instinct says the current version (delaying introduction contributing to allergies) is closer to correct... but it was easier just to avoid potential allergens!

DD (5 mo) has a sensitive belly, and has shown some sort of reaction (crying fits, hives, gas, mucousy and/or green poop) to several of the Top 8 allergens (and a few other things) through breastmilk. So it seems sensible to hold off on those for a while.

Where I get mixed up is whether I should be introducing foods our family doesn't eat regularly. Peanuts and wheat, for example. She's sensitive to them now, and our family doesn't eat them as a rule. But they're ubiquitous in the standard American diet, to the extent that many people can't conceive of how they'll feed their kids if they can't make a peanut butter sandwich. It's fairly safe to assume she'll eat them at some point, so I'd prefer her be able to handle them without serious problems.

I realize I'm probably overthinking this, as most people don't go on to develop life-threatening allergies to things they aren't introduced to as babies regardless. If she was a less sensitive baby, I probably wouldn't give it a second thought and just introduce her to what our family eats.

I know how you feel. My gut says delayed is better, but that is just my gut. We started around 7 months, but my girl is so not a solids kid. She is about a year old and eats very, very little.

As for the foods that you don't eat regularly, I wouldn't stress them, personally. A peanut butter sandwich won't be a go-to in your household, so why worry? There are plenty of foods I never had growing up because either my family didn't eat them (like pork), or because I was picky picky picky (like a TON of other foods). I don't have any allergy problems with them now, so I don't think that you're going to automatically run into issues with peanuts or wheat with your boy just because you don't give them to him now.

[MomtoDandJ]

My son is 14 months and the only thing we've held back are peanuts and honey. We have eaten peanut butter in the house though, and I know my older son has eaten it and then touched the baby or kissed the baby, so I'm pretty sure he's not allergic, but we're still holding off. He's tried berries and eggs and all the other questionable items. My dr. just told us to introduce them in the mornings so if he has an allergic reaction it would be in the middle of the day when everyone is awake and the dr.'s office is open. So that's what we've done. Anytime we introduce something new, we just do it at breakfast or at an early lunch and then watch him closely for the next few hours.

I can't remember when they are allowed honey -- make 2 years old?

[Knitting Mama]

After a year for honey.

[rachael07]

We've given DS everything (peanuts, strawberries, wheat, egg, dairy, soy, beans, fish) except honey (botulism risk!). I think many of the recommendations about avoiding allergens are being reversed -- early exposure is starting to look better (for infants that are not at risk)

[Nicole730]

I gave DD anything and everything we were eating to try, once I wanted her to start eating food.  She had tastes of fruits I was eating from 5-6 months and then at 7 months I started giving her more.  I'm vegetarian, so she is too :)  But the only thing I held off on before 1 year was peanut butter and honey.  Peanut butter I waited on because I was scared to give it before age 1, but we did end up letting her try some a few days before her bday.  Honey because of the botulism risk (?? maybe it's some other illness, either way). 

[hasya]

I am puzzled by this delaying grains thing. In Asia, all babies traditionally get grains right from the get go.

[Knitting Mama]

It's just a different school of thought. Many believe that a) white rice cereal is nutritionally useless and isn't an ideal early food at all and b) delaying grains is better for underdeveloped digestive systems. There is some research that people talk about that states that the enzymes required to properly digest grains don't develop until after one.

[Janeen]

The book, Nourishing Traditions talks a little bit about this and I think it is due to the fact that we as a species started out as a hunter gatherer species and not as an agricultural species. Therefore, our bodies have not really evolved to concern certain things at young ages and babies especially do not have the enzymes to digest grains (and this day and age, grains are not prepared in a way that makes it easier for adults even to digest them, most are soaked/fermented before being made). This article goes a little into it http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2010/05/right-way-to-feed-babies/ I think her language gets a bit blunt but she makes some interesting points. This article goes more into first foods for babies: http://westonaprice.org/childrens-health/317-nourishing-a-growing-baby Reading that has me thinking that maybe I should look into introducing a bit of meat the baby. My older daughter does not eat meat much at all and I don't want this baby to get the same idea especially with her weight being where it's at.

It's hard to know exactly what to do when it comes to feeding our little ones, that's for sure!
 

Originally Posted by hasya 

I am puzzled by this delaying grains thing. In Asia, all babies traditionally get grains right from the get go.