Bizarre article

[Dragonfly]

Have you all seen this?

http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_abo...ut_solids.html

Seriously... advocating solids as early as 3 months and saying that it doesn't matter whether or not breast or solids are offered first, even early on? :

[Firemom]

I didn't think the article advocated solids at 3 months

[mamaana]

I don't think he was advocating solids at 3 months either. It was actually a really well-written article.

Some babies really do want solids very early on. I know because my ds started just before 4 months by his choice. He kept grabbing food off my plate so I gave it to him. It didn't hurt our breastfeeding relationship at all.

We'll see how it is with the next one.

[Dragonfly]

From the article:

When a baby seems to be hungry, or when weight gain is not continuing at the desired rate, it may be reasonable to start solids as early as 3 months of age.

I'm very surprised to see that. I'd think he would be advocating formula in such cases where breastmilk really wasn't sufficient, as opposed to solids that would provide very incomplete nutrition.

Also, mamaana, the "he was grabbing food off my plate, so he was clearly ready to eat" reasoning makes no sense to me. Babies grab all sorts of things and shove them in their mouths.

I'm very surprised to see a doctor who appears to be very pro-breastfeeding advocating something that a) can interfere with the breastfeeding relationship (I'm specifically thinking of his statement that it doesn't matter whether or not you offer breast or solids first) and b) would lead to space in a baby's stomach being filled with subpar nutrition, when it could be filled with complete nutrition. It's even more surprising to me to see folks on a Lactivism board agreeing with that.

[RachelGS]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Also, mamaana, the "he was grabbing food off my plate, so he was clearly ready to eat" reasoning makes no sense to me. Babies grab all sorts of things and shove them in their mouths.

I agree. When my daughter was 5.5 months, she was doing everything she could think of to get at my dinner, but she wasn't sitting unassisted or doing a few other things that would have demonstrated her developmental readiness. I didn't know as much then and mistook her interest for readiness. We paid for it for about seven months in the form of reflux, sleep disturbance, pain in the carseat... it was AWFUL.

[Benji'sMom]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

From the article:



I'm very surprised to see that. I'd think he would be advocating formula in such cases where breastmilk really wasn't sufficient, as opposed to solids that would provide very incomplete nutrition.

Also, mamaana, the "he was grabbing food off my plate, so he was clearly ready to eat" reasoning makes no sense to me. Babies grab all sorts of things and shove them in their mouths.

I'm very surprised to see a doctor who appears to be very pro-breastfeeding advocating something that a) can interfere with the breastfeeding relationship (I'm specifically thinking of his statement that it doesn't matter whether or not you offer breast or solids first) and b) would lead to space in a baby's stomach being filled with subpar nutrition, when it could be filled with complete nutrition. It's even more surprising to me to see folks on a Lactivism board agreeing with that.

i agree

[queenbean]

Dr. Newman is not advocating giving solids as early as 3 months, or giving solids just because baby is grabbing it off the plate. He is simply saying that some babies may need them a little earlier. I disagree, but it's a reasonable statement, and I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. I do wish he had qualified those statements by saying that you should ask the child's doctor before starting solids earlier than 6 months, because a lot of moms just start shoveling food down their kid's throat because they misunderstand a growth spurt or teething as a sign that breastmilk isn't enough -- I worry that uninformed moms may read that article and say, "See, Dr. Newman said some babies need it early, maybe mine is one of those," and instead of asking a doctor or an IBCLC or someone who can look at that child's specific situation, they just start baby on solids and possibly damage that fragile little gut. I don't think the information is necessarily bad, I just wish it were presented in a different way so that it couldn't be misconstrued.

[G8P4]

I didn't interpret it the same way as you, Dragonfly.

I'm very surprised to see that. I'd think he would be advocating formula in such cases where breastmilk really wasn't sufficient, as opposed to solids that would provide very incomplete nutrition.

If breast milk really isn't sufficient, there are real advantages to NOT starting formula, if supplementation really becomes necessary. One is that formula has to be given by a bottle, (usually) and often, once the woman starts giving a baby who is not gaining well a bottle, the baby prefers it. This CAN start a downward spiral, so that eventually the baby ends up getting NO breast milk at all.

So one option in the baby who is not breastfeeding well, besides fixing the breastfeeding, (which is always the first step)... is to add solids rather than adding formula. Solids don't necessarily have to be "incomplete nutrition"

Also, mamaana, the "he was grabbing food off my plate, so he was clearly ready to eat" reasoning makes no sense to me. Babies grab all sorts of things and shove them in their mouths

Yes, babies grab all sorts of things, but some babies REALLY do seem to be interested in eating solids off their mothers plates earlier than others and really have all the cues, like all developmental milestones there is variation. Seems silly to wait until some arbitrarily set time....exactly the 6 month mark.

I'm very surprised to see a doctor who appears to be very pro-breastfeeding advocating something that a) can interfere with the breastfeeding relationship (I'm specifically thinking of his statement that it doesn't matter whether or not you offer breast or solids first) and b) would lead to space in a baby's stomach being filled with subpar nutrition, when it could be filled with complete nutrition. It's even more surprising to me to see folks on a Lactivism board agreeing with that.

Well, this is a very old article. I think that the whole purpose of talking about early solids, in this case, is to preserve the breastfeeding in a breastfeeding relationship, where the baby is not gaining well, because supplementing with formula by bottle sometimes interferes with that.

What Dr Newman does say is that the most common legitimate reason to start solids earlier than five or six months of age is poor weight gain not corrected by correcting the breastfeeding.

[Momtwice]

Originally Posted by G8P4

Yes, babies grab all sorts of things, but some babies REALLY do seem to be interested in eating solids off their mothers plates earlier than others and really have all the cues, like all developmental milestones there is variation. Seems silly to wait until some arbitrarily set time....exactly the 6 month mark.

Yes babies are different but it's not arbitrary. It's based on research showing that babies who are exlusively breastfed until six months are healthier than babies who are given other foods at 4, 5 months or earlier.
Giving solids at 3, 4 or 5 months means an increase in babies becoming ill with frequent infections and other health problems.
http://www.medbroadcast.com/health_n...id=6140&rss=67
http://www.kellymom.com/nutrition/so...ay-solids.html


Not to mention...babies grab everything they can. That doesn't mean that all of these things are good for them!

[G8P4]

You are right, momtwice, I agree that the 6 months mark was carefully set out....and I was sloppy with what I said....but I do know moms who wait until exactly the 6 months instead of watching for ALL the cues. It's a case of watching the baby and not the calendar.

but what this is article is also talking about is the baby who is NOT gaining well, when you HAVE to supplement, right?

[meldess]

I heard Dr. Newman speak once at a LLL conference. He believes (if I remember correctly) that infant formula should not be used as a supplement or replacement of breastmilk at all. If one wants or needs to supplement breastfeeding, good food choices should be given instead.

[Firemom]

Originally Posted by meldess

I heard Dr. Newman speak once at a LLL conference. He believes (if I remember correctly) that infant formula should not be used as a supplement or replacement of breastmilk at all. If one wants or needs to supplement breastfeeding, good food choices should be given instead.

This is what I have gotten out of his articles and as a speaker.

[boobs4milk]

i think he could have left out the part about some babies needing solids at age 3 months. he is casting doubt on the breastfeeding mom's ability to provide nutrition for her child. there's enough worry and doubt out there for us, we don't need a professional helping us out in that area.

i agree, solids at any time before 12 months is simply for practice. and if you feed your baby anything, i'd recommend infant cereal NOT be on the list.

[Momtwice]

Maybe he feels that in a case of supplementing, single ingredient foods are better than formula which has so many ingredients? In terms of figuring out a food allergy for instance? (just GUESSING here.)

I don't get that because most solid foods are low in calories and fat...maybe he's talking about meat or avacado or something?

[birdie22]

Here is a more up-to-date version of the same article:

http://www.drjacknewman.com/index.ph...d=58&Itemid=88

[boobs4milk]

thank you for that, dawn...i still don't agree that any 3 month old is ready for solids. just because their outsides LOOK ready, doesn't mean their insides ARE.

and i also don't agree in giving solids first or that it 'doesn't matter.' solids are just not as good for a growing 6 month old as breastmilk, and it should be offered first.

[mamaana]

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about my situation.

My ds was developmentally ready as well as being a huge baby who could suck me dry (felt like that anyway ) and still be hungry. For him, it didn't matter if he ate solids or nursed first...sometimes he would do both when we'd be eating dinner at the table. He seemed to self-regulate quite well. At his 2 month check-up when he weighed in at 17 lbs, the nurse at the clinic did not believe I was only nursing...she told me breastfed babies cannot be that large.

There were also plenty of times that he would reject any solids in order to nurse non-stop and increase my supply.

Again, I really did not interpret the article as advocating solids for 3 month olds.

FWIW, my ds nursed until 3 y.o. and has had no health problems at all.

[Momtwice]

Originally Posted by boobs4milk

thank you for that, dawn...i still don't agree that any 3 month old is ready for solids. just because their outsides LOOK ready, doesn't mean their insides ARE.

and i also don't agree in giving solids first or that it 'doesn't matter.' solids are just not as good for a growing 6 month old as breastmilk, and it should be offered first.

Yes, and size has nothing to do with it. Bigger babies do not have stronger guts. At least not in my family they don't!

[queenbean]

I know -- I've never understood the argument that "big babies need more food." Obviously the baby's getting enough food to keep growing, so that's a good thing, right? I would think that smaller, underweight babies would need more food than an overweight one. :

Anyway, as I said, I kind of doubt that a baby can be ready for solids at three months. But I'm no expert, and there are exceptions to every rule. Just as some babies can thrive on nothing but breastmilk for the first 18 months of life, maybe there are some babies who need something more for health reasons. I do kind of think it should have been left out, or qualified with an "ask your doctor" statement, but I can't say with absolute certainty that NO baby can tolerate solids at three months. I just don't know. Nobody does, really. Most shouldn't have it til 6 months, but maybe there are exceptions.

[Momily]

Originally Posted by Momtwice

Yes babies are different but it's not arbitrary. It's based on research showing that babies who are exlusively breastfed until six months are healthier than babies who are given other foods at 4, 5 months or earlier.

Yes, but he's very clear that he's talking about babies for whom exclusive breastfeeding isn't an option due to low supply or other issues. What I'm reading into this is that if your child's over 3 months and you need to supplement, and you've tried everything to increase supply, improve your breastfeeding, then maybe some banana or avocado or even cereal mixed with breastmilk is a better choice than adding formula and risking developing a preference for a bottle.

Interestingly, I had a child who was NOT ready for solids at 5 or 6 months and who NEVER grabbed at food off my plate until almost 9 months. He would put everything under the sun in his mouth EXCEPT for food, and when I tried to put it in, he just looked puzzled and spit it back out.