How much solids for 6 month old?

Buy a regular food processor, it will make your life easier in general, not just with baby food. Also buy a slow cooker, for the same reasons (you can prep a family meal in the morning and have it waiting for you when you walk back in the door after work). My food processor has a blender attachment and can also grate cheese/vegies and juice fruit but you can buy cheaper more basic ones that just blend and chop. I also have a rice-cooker which happens to have a steamer attachment, although I have to admit I tend to cook vegies in the microwave with a small amount of water and a lid on top. If you use the water when you puree them, or add it to stocks etc then you are not wasting nutrients. The last thing to buy is ice-cube trays. I used silicone ones as its a million times easier to get the cubes out. When DS got older I switched to silicone muffin tins (which I already had). All these things will come in handy for the future vs something specifically for making baby food. Oh and lots of ziplock freezer bags, plus a permanent marker to label them all. Once you get into the swing of it you'll find time. You don't have to puree at all, finger foods are fine from 6 months (assuming your baby can sit independantly etc) but I found DS had a very sensitive gag reflex and chunky foods did seem to trigger reflux at the start. I have always just slow cooked the meats with nice herbs, spices, onion garlic and then chucked the lot in the food processor before freezing. I then did vegies (carrots, peas etc) separately so I could add diff combos. Probably 5 minutes prep before bed, slow cooked overnight, 5 minutes prep in morning, put in freezer. If you have a housemaid/nanny then she can easily chop , cook and puree the vegies for you. Just be sure to hide the salt! Fruits like banana, papaya, mango, melons, avocado etc you don't need to cook/freeze at all, just mash with a fork or try as finger foods, very easy. Re eggs. because of salmonella risk you are supposed to make sure they are well cooked so unless you can get your hands on pasteurized eggs (godsend when I was pregnant) then don't make them too runny until she is a bit older. ;)

am I lazy or what! but seriously its saves you so much time on dishes if you don't have to cook the pasta or rice on the spot either and you don't end up standing over a hot stove with a hungry toddler pulling on your pants saying "mummy mummy MUUUUUUMY, pasta PASTA pasta!!" Oh, lordy, I have SO been there! When DS was newborn, I had a rota whereby I saved a DD-sized portion of our food from the evening before (taken before the added salt), so when it was feeding time at the zoo ('cos invariably DS also wanted feeding too!), I could shove her dish in the microwave one-handed. I also did steamed diced carrots and then froze them, but froze them in water because our freezer seems to like to freeze-dry stuff if it gets half the chance.

Kiwi - going to have to agree with you again! lol! I would boil up a single veg, purée it and freeze it in ice cube trays, then decant the cubes into a freezer bag for storage - do this with a few veg and then you can make your own veg cocktail... and once bubs is only lumpy bits, you just reheat the purée with some pasta/rice or teensy cubed carrots or whatever.! yep same same in our house, DH called it "spaceman food" as our freezer was full of multicoloured cubes, and guess what.....you can [b'>freeze[/b'> the cooked pasta too! I've just added this to my freezer repertoire, plain cooked little macaroni drained and tossed in olive oil then frozen in single portion sizes. You can also chuck the carrots (or sweet potato etc) (raw) in to food proccesor to chop them into little bits and freeze them in a big ziplock bag until you want to cook them. am I lazy or what! but seriously its saves you so much time on dishes if you don't have to cook the pasta or rice on the spot either and you don't end up standing over a hot stove with a hungry toddler pulling on your pants saying "mummy mummy MUUUUUUMMY, pasta PASTA pasta!!" (we've only just introduced pasta as we've been keeping wheat to a minimum, DH being gluten intolerant, much like milk, DS can't get enough!.) <em>edited by kiwispiers on 15/01/2012</em>

thanks kiwis - will def try this out. I'm all about freezing food too - my freezer is now full of food for DS, so much so that we now have another smaller freezer for our own stuff LOL! Second the fact that you can control texture too - am now just mashing rather than pureeing (except for meat/chicken/fish). I do have a load of sachets for emergencies that I bought when I started weaning, but have hardly had to use them. It's definitely not as time consuming as you would think. This morning I made a batch of lentils and veg and had them on the lowest heat and actually forgot about them eek but they were totally fine and then hardly had to mash at all lol!

Kiwi - going to have to agree with you again! lol! I would boil up a single veg, purée it and freeze it in ice cube trays, then decant the cubes into a freezer bag for storage - do this with a few veg and then you can make your own veg cocktail... and once bubs is only lumpy bits, you just reheat the purée with some pasta/rice or teensy cubed carrots or whatever. The actual pureeing takes about 30 minutes from start to finish and then the reheating is no more than 5. I just had some good old saucepans and a stick blender. I also used to do fruit purées in ice cubes to have with plain yoghurt too. That and porridge... gosh, porridge is just so wonderful on so many levels! lol I was told that lamb is a very good meat to start babies on, as it is a rich meat with lots of fats (very nutritious) - use minced lamb, of course! Saying all that, I moved my two to normal food pretty quickly, about 8 weeks after starting solids because I wanted to eat with them whenever possible and to be honest, they were bored stiff with purées and purées with lumps!

Nope SG eggs not essential at all, they prob make it a bit thicker because I guess its essentially like a custard, my main reason for adding them though is to make it more nutritious (and cos my mum told me to ;) ). You could just add egg yolks instead as its the white that tend to create more of a problem allergy-wise and the yolks have all the good stuff. If I have no eggs on hand though I just make without and it always turns out fine. You could add some flaxseed or coconut oil etc instead to add some more goodness. PS the ratios I gave are what I roughly use, but its very forgiving, I don't usually measure, I just pour it all in. Freezes well (and those who know me know I'm all about foods that can be frozen!) Agree with HAK, homemade food is much easier to control. I was buying the Rachel's baby yoghurt (organic with fruit juice sweeteners etc and switched to plain organic yoghurt once I read the list of ingredients on the baby stuff. I like to keep it simple (so yoghurt that just says milk, without starches, stabilizers, thickeners, gelatine etc etc) Homemade baby food[i'> sounds[/i'> like a hassle but its actually not all that time consuming and much much cheaper. It also makes it easier to vary the texture as your baby grows. I used to have a big cook-up once a week in the weekend and freeze the whole lot. If you go this route then I would suggest investing in a slow cooker (so much easier because you just bang everything in and don't have to stand over it, worry about burning etc) and a food processor/blender. You can also be time efficient by cooking food for everyone, then pureeing part of it for your baby before adding salt). It makes it much easier when your transitioning to "normal" food as the flavours don't change.

you could also try goats milk instead of cow's. One of my friends got round her son's dairy allergy this way. I would also stop using the jars. It's far easier to control what's gone into your baby's food if you make it yourself and often, just the industrial production process breaks the food down far more than you would.

thanks will give it a try! Are the eggs necessary? Was thinking of holding off eggs for a while as apparently I was very allergic to eggs as a baby although after 12 months and slow introduction again I was ok...

SG very very easy rice pudding recipe :) 3-4 tablespoons risotto/pudding rice 5 cups milk/formula 2 whole eggs (I use the omega3 gold ones) knob of butter (you can add banana, sultanas, cardamom, cinnamon etc too) mix well and cook on a low heat until thick and creamy, I use a slow cooker and cook on low for a few hours, stovetop/oven you'd want to stir more often) I freeze it in silicon muffin tins and DS has for breakfast with an equal amount of fruit puree (usually a peach/banana/fig/plum type combo which I also freeze) <em>edited by kiwispiers on 15/01/2012</em>

hi ladies, just a quickie M - a good friend of mine has a baby who has also always suffered with bad reflux (now 10 mths old). She has found in her experience that any packet food (organic or not) seems to cause issues and vomiting whereas when she gives him her own homemade food he is fine. Worth considering too! However he seems to be fine on yogurt and she often does cheese/milk sauces and has had no problem - so I guess they are all different too. kiwi - that rice pudding recipe sounds yummy, any chance you can post it?

Yes dairy has been tricky for us. Basically DS LOVES any kind of dairy product, unfortunately they do not love him back. :( Yoghurt was a no go until he was at least 12 months, really its only been the last 2 or 3 months that it hasn't been an obvious reflux trigger (him getting squirmy and lots of swallowing, coughing etc) I have however used milk in his morning rice pudding, since he was around 8/9 months as I am certainly not up to pumping the 5 cups of milk that the recipe requires ;), this has never seemed to trouble him. Perhaps boiling the milk is making a difference?. I honestly don't know why yoghurt would be a problem and not milk but DH reckons it gives him reflux too. Cheese I have tried giving only very recently (probably since he was 14 months). I think it makes him constipated/gassy. I also notice it can be quite salty, so its something I tend to avoid or use sparingly. I have been giving him to odd glass of cows milk lately too (last few months) I dilute it with water as I don't want him to have too much of it, typically, he LOVES it too and has a fit if he sees it on the bench now that he knows what it is. For the most part he has grown out of his reflux now, and I can't breastfed forever so I am trying to incorporate some dairy and other calcium sources into his diet. Lately he has been having fruit and yoghurt for lunch and I try and keep dinner dairy free. Kiwifruit, citrus and strawberries I waited until he was 12 months, and when I did give them they had a terrible result so have removed them all again. He has lots of papaya, banana, apricots, plums etc and blueberries also seem fine. The other thing I found when starting solids was that chunky foods seemed to worsen his reflux a lot more than purees. Shame cos I had been sold on the BLW idea but purees were the way to go for us. I think its to do with speed of gastric emptying? chunks take longer so there is more time to reflux (hence some reflux babies are on meds to speed up gastric emptying), anyway iron etc is also better absorbed when meat is pureed, so I gave meat in puree form for quite a while. The meat content of bought baby foods is generally really low, (and as you will have noticed they are mostly apple, which isn't ideal, I think pectin also inhibits iron, but don't quote me on that ;) ) so if there was anything you were going to make yourself it should be the meat/fish/chicken etc. You can mix it with the sachets of vegie/fruit purees if you want to save time or else just cook up a big batch of sweet potato (seems to be reflux friendly), some pureed peas (another easy one) and freeze some cooked quinoa for some nutrient rich carbs. all the best xx

oh and the stuff I'm just reading at the moment says that chamomile inhibits iron absorption, so yep water over chamomile, esp with her being on the antireflux meds which also inhibit iron. here are some inks from my favourite website (I know I link from it all the time but I found this stuff really helpful when introducing solids to DS :) ) http://www.parentingscience.com/iron-absorption.html http://www.parentingscience.com/iron-rich-foods.html I've just been reading about this stuff again (read it all when started DS on solids as I was really into boosting his iron intake but I'm just starting to introduce dairy to his diet now so trying to figure out best time to give it, obviously calcium is important too.

Funny you should say that, I was literally just about to post about calcium and iron absorption, stay tuned, I'm hoping someone knows more than me. [i'>edited to add a link to my post, should be useful to you too, if anyone answers it :)[/i'> http://www.expatwoman.com/qatar/forum/messages.aspx?TopicID=169932 No idea about protein interactions, except that milk is an important protein source for her in itself right now. Important to keep in mind though that right now solids should be complementing her milk intake. Its unlikely she is consuming a wide enough range of foods just yet to get the right nutrients without the milk, so I guess I would feel its more important to find a way to get the milk in, using the solids as "bait", than necessarily worry about it affecting the absorption from her solids right now. Maybe talk to a qualified dietician about this? <em>edited by kiwispiers on 14/01/2012</em>

M what is in the tea?, if she doesn't take milk, plain water would prob be a safer bet. I do know that DS went through a phase for a month or two where he simply did not want to nurse when he woke in the morning, he would have breakfast (solids) at 7am and no milk until around 10am just before his nap. He was still nursing in the night at that point though, when he dropped all his night feeds he became interested in a morning feed again. So maybe its just the time of day you are offering? you could try and teach her a bit of baby sign language so that she can ask for her milk on demand. DS could sign for "nurse" by 10 months, maybe sooner I really don't remember and before that he would tug at my top so it was pretty obvious, it might be harder for a bottle fed baby to communicte but you [b'>can[/b'> bottle feed on demand. keep a bottle in view for her to point at if she feels like it and offer it often throughout the day. With her reflux you are right, she may have developed an aversion to her bottle, switching to a regular cup or sippy cup [i'>might[/i'> help, worth a try. meanwhile mix as much formula with her solids as you can get away with and keep offering her formula as a drink throughout the day, in preference to water or tea. HTH

DS did exactly the same at around about the same age - he only wanted milk morning and evening (and then 2-3 times during the night). I breastfed, so, well, that was that and we adapted. You can't force them to drink or eat, so just try to make good choices - always include a dairy product in each meal (cheese, milk, yoghurt, cream) and always offer water or milk during the meal too in a cup. I started doing porridge (made with just milk, no water) for breakfast, lunch with yoghurt and dinner with a white sauce/ cheese sauce or another yoghurt or milk jelly. If she's not keen on a bottle milk feed any more, just adapt and watch her weight gain (which will be starting to slow anyway) and nappy output. Babies should only be drinking milk or water - limit juice to mealtimes (high acidity in fruit juices), absolutely nothing soda-ish and no caffeinated drinks (tea or coffee). There's quite a bit of "stuff" like tannins in herbal teas too, which quite honestly, babies can do without. As long as she's having nutritious meals and is well hydrated, there shouldn't really be a problem.

Maybe its just me. . Ka kite ano xx I had to look that one up...... See you again.

You may post a response. But if the response is a criticism or inaccurate comment on things you admit you never read - natural to expect that you be corrected. The boards are for sharing info - learning and helping. The topic came up, and as there is much controversy and differing sets of guidelines, I've posted a lot of useful info relevant to parents making informed choices for themselves. If you're not interested in reading different views on the topic - then don't read it. It is not helpful to anyone when you post half a dozen replies, giving inaccurate information about what is contained in articles that you never even read. Everything that is posted about motherhood on this board - you try to turn it into a competition. Are you insecure or something? Comments like "convince me", "sway me"... These are not my studies that I've posted. It does not affect me what opinion you or anyone else takes on it. I do not even know what opinion I have. My son is not a baby and I won't be having any more. It doesnt affect me. Hence why I just provide the information for people to read and make their own decisions. If you don't want to read people's information - don't comment on it. Or if you have other articles that are related - why not just post them so other people can read and make an opinion? <em>edited by punchbiffpow on 05/01/2012</em>

Maybe its just me. LMAO, I think it might be. I've tried very hard answer the many questions my posts seem to leave you with, but am starting to feel a strange sense of déjà vu ;). I haven't encountered an issue on EW before with someone so deliberately failing to see what I am actually saying. There are only so many ways I can restate the same thing. I think it might be best I don't respond to your posts in future, am sure you will not be able to resist having the last word on this post so I will happily oblige. Ka kite ano xx

The flaw in much (perhaps not all, I haven't had time to read through your links yet) Its not in all, and not even in 'much'. So yes, it might pay to read things before posting about all the flawed research that you've never actually read yet?

RE allergens and breastfeeding. The point about breatfeeding while introducing solids being more beneficial is true (unlike you mention, the time period [i'>was[/i'> important, with 4-6 months being the ideal time, and any time after 6months losing its benefit). They are combined with a huge database of studies, none of which can find any harm in introducing solids after 4 months, none of which can find any benefit in waiting 6 months, and many of which find increased allergies and iron deficienceies in waiting until 6 months to introduce solids. Not to mention - as women who breastfeed at 6 months are considerable less in number than those who were doing so at months - it makes sense that to allow them to introduce foods at 4 months rather than wait around for no apparent benefit until 6 months - would produce a greater outcome for a larger percentage of babies. There are very few studies which indicate that there is any benefit to exclusively breastfeeding until 6 months, as apposed to just breastfeeding whether with solids or not (providing solids were not introduced before 4 months) RE: Umbilical cord - that is very much hypothetical. Nobody has ever been able to prove it. It was just a response to the studies showing EBF was insufficient until 6 months as babies were running out of iron - and a response of 'maybe if we cut the cord later that would help?' Its far from being at a pont where it can be included in any evidence-based discussion about meeting iron needs in babies right now. Iron is only 1 micronutrient that babies EBF for 6 months experience. Not to mention many mothers lacking in energy content in their milk etc etc and etc and the instance of allergies is higher and the list goes on. Even if the umbilical cord theory helped with iron - we'd still be left with several other issues. Meanwhile - the whole point is right now, it is a proven fact that babies you receive only breastmilk until 6 months have higher risk of iron deficiency. Even WHO and any body who suggests breastfeeding for 6 months suggests breastmilk does not meet all need needs and iron supplements would be required. Its not in question by anyone. Meanwhile - we are blindly sticking to an arbitrary rule of 6 months (yes it is arbitrary, it was decided when compared to 3-4 months. It was never compared to 4-6 months and nobody can come up with any solid reason how 4-6 months is in any way inferior to 6 motnhs). But there is plenty showing that 6 months is overshooting the mark - especially in industrialized countries, because the WHO 6 months guideline primarily had developing countries in mind. Hence the entire decision was about their increased risk of gastro infection, limited access to affordable nutrient rich foods, and the benefits of keeping the women not menstruating. Now that there is increasing evidence that 6 months may be too long - it seems negligent in the industrialized world to "play it safe" with issues that were never really relevant to us to begin with, when it seems to be causing increased risks in things that are relevant to us. RE: Sway you? Makes no difference to me what you choose to believe. It's your kids you're feeding (or rather, not feeding), not mine. Its just strikes me as strange that for someone who comes online every day and preaches to others that babies naturally know when they need milk and should never wait, then turns around when breasmilk is shown to not provide all nutirents, and claims that babies actually [i'>don't[/i'> naturally know anything, and their cues could be wrong, and we should watch the calendar and not the baby. Either babies bodies naturally know things, or they dont. RE: Readiness signs - there is nothing to indicate these are important. All the reasearch shows there is no harm after 4 months. Definitely risky to wait longer than 6 months, and more and more research showing waiting until 6 months is risky. Its not a question of readiness signs per se - its shown to not be harmful after 4 months full stop regardless of readiness signs. Yes, in 2010 - AAP reduced the time for EBF from 6 months to 4-6 months and recommend ALL exclusively breastfed babies be given iron supplements from 4 months until they receive iron-rich complementary foods. This was due to the 6 month guideline showing rises in iron deficiencies and the dubious studies showing the irreversible damage this can cause. Formula fed babies were not required to supplement iron because there was enough supplementation in the formula already. <em>edited by punchbiffpow on 05/01/2012</em>

Re "allergy argument" - what are the flaws .. Because there is study after study after study that you can read yourself (and rule out misrepresentation) that indicate 4-6 months is more beneficial guideline in regards to allergens. The flaw in much (perhaps not all, I haven't had time to read through your links yet) research used to support the argument that the risk of allergies is increased bywaiting until 6 months, vs starting before 4 and 6 months, is that the key factor seems to be whether or not an infant is EBF at the time of introducing allergens, (you quoted evidence to support that yourself) therefore it is not waiting until 6 months that poses a risk, but rather not breastfeeding at the time of solids introduction. The BMJ article is very often quoted so its quite relevant to mention this. If babies are at risk of iron deficiency by waiting six months to introduce foods - if we werent introducing foods for millions of years before we had iron drops, how do believe were the iron needs being met? There is a school of thought that suggests that the reason iron deficiency is seen in some studies (are there are other studies which do not show the same results) is due to premature cord clamping at birth, which would not have been an issue for cave babies. I alluded to this earlier but, as I said, its perhaps a whole thread in itself and the data is somewhat conflicting. Re - separating out data of EBF babies - its not a valid point in the issue of which age guideline to use because all of the studies faced the same limitation. But you had presented it as a flaw in allergen studies and a reason to not change the current 6 month guidelines. But the 6 month guidelines had the same limitiations. I just found it a little biased. as I explained above I'm just confused at how you differentiate cue-breastfeeding with cue-solids feeding? I am very much in favour of cue solids feeding vs feeding solids on a schedule (3 spoons of this at x o'clock etc) and as I already said, the "cave baby" signs of readiness idea also appeals to me, but I haven't yet read any research that directly correlates readiness signs with benefit. If there is a risk of iron deficiency then wouldn't that suggest [b'>all[/b'> babies be given iron supplementation or iron rich foods at an earlier point, rather than an arbitrary point in between or are you suggesting they cue at the same point as their micronutirents become low? Do you have a study that supports this?, it would certainly sway me more in that direction. You went to great lengths to suggest I was misrepresenting you as saying there was much evidence to suggest EBF until 6 months may be harmful and then posted a large bunch of links to support the idea that there may be risks in waiting until 6 months. LOL. Thank you for the links though, I will take the time to read them. <em>edited by kiwispiers on 05/01/2012</em>

In addition to the half-dozen or so below, here are some more studies suggesting benefits and reduced risks in complementary feeding at 4-6 months as apposed to waiting 6 months. [url=http://www.ktl.fi/portal/english/research__people___programs/health_promotion_and_chronic_disease_prevention/units/nutrition_unit/nutrition_and_diabetes/dipp_-_nutrition_study/'>link[/url'> *Study of 994 children studied for 5 years *Heightened risk of allergy for children introduced to potato after 4 months *Heightened risk of allergy for children introduced to oats after 5 months *Heightened risk of allergy for children introduced to meat after 5.2 months *Heightened risk of allergy for children introduced to wheat after 6 months *Reported no link between exclusive breastfeeding, length of breastfeeding on allergic sensitivities at 5 years of age [url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/10/05/peds.2010-2576.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Clinical+Report+Diagnosis+and+Prevention+of+Iron+Deficiency&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT'>link[/url'> *4% of babies at 6months and 12% of babies at 12 months are iron deficient *Iron deficiency is linked to irreversible cognitive and behavioural problems This is the reason AAP changed USA recommendations of complemtary feeding from 6 months to 4-6 months and recommend iron supplements for all exclusively breastfed babies from 4 months until such time as they receive complementary iron-sufficent foods. [url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xPyuUPlX7FMC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=complementary+feeding+too+late&source=bl&ots=CrjurKSv6g&sig=JOLJ4oDrsw0QvvrjVAb_LHcsA1I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HZIET7vQDISZOsTtrKgB&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=complementary%20feeding%20too%20late&f=false'>link[/url'> *The WHO guidelines are aimed at low-income countries with limited access to low-cost safe nutrient rich foods. *No evidence of harm when foods introduced from 4 months when baby demonstrates readiness *Each baby’ readiness can range from 4 months to 8 months of age European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Scientific opinion on the appropriate age for introduction of complementary feeding of infants. EFSA Journal2009;7:1423. *Found no benefit to with-holding foods until 6 months. Recommends 4-6 months guideline Kramer MS, Kakuma R. The optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding: a systematic review. World Health Organization, 2002. *The review that underpinned WHO's guidelines. It only reviewed 16 studies, 7 of which were in developing countries. *One of the major conclusions was that there were higher rates of iron deficiency in infants who received solids at 6 months compared to those who received solids at 4 months Reilly JJ, Wells JC. Duration of exclusive breast-feeding: introduction of complementary feeding may be necessary before 6 months of age. Br J Nutr2005;94:869-72. *UK study, measured energy needs, milk out put, and energy content of milk and concluded that many mothers breastfeeding until 6 months are unable to meet their babies energy requirements [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17661577?dopt=Abstract&access_num=17661577&link_type=MED'>link[/url'> *USA study showing increased risk of iron deficiency in infants not receiving solids until 6 months [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10742372?dopt=Abstract&access_num=10742372&link_type=MED'>link[/url'> *Studies of children with iron deficieny in infancy showed irreversibly impaired mental and motor functioning at 10 years [url=http://189.28.128.100/nutricao/docs/Enpacs/pesquisaArtigos/the_importance_early_complementary_feeding_development_oral_tolerance_2008.pdf'>link[/url'> *Australian study showing that since the 6 months guideline was introduced, rates of allergy and autoimmune disorders in industrialized countries have increased *Argues that the window for gut coloniztion is somewhere between 4-6 months but has not been pinpointed. *Delays in exposure to substances through complementary feeding until 6 months may increase the risk of autoimmune disease and allergy by missing the "critical window" for introduction *No evidence to support that any time after 4 months is harmful *This is particularly relevant to changing the guidelines in industrialized countries where risk of allergy and immune disease is higher and risk of gut infections is lower. *The list various evidence of iron and nutirient deficiencies in babies exclusively breastfed until 6 months *They suggest that in industrialized countries complementary feed from 4-6 months, with breastfeeding encouraged to continue to 6 month minimum Norris JM, Barriga K, Hoffenberg EJ, et al. Risk of celiac disease autoimmunity and timing of gluten introduction in the diet of infants at increased risk of disease. JAMA 2005: 293: 2343–51. . Norris JM, Barriga K, Klingensmith G, et al. Timing of initial cereal exposure in infancy and risk of islet autoimmunity. JAMA 2003: 290: 1713–20. *Two studies indicating that waiting 6 months as apposed to 4-6 months may increase risk of autoimmune disorders

No problem. Re "allergy argument" - what are the flaws in this research? Which studies do you particularly see as flawed? I understand one study was misrepresented by one person in one article (a fault of the author, not of the researchers who performed the study - they presented their own information very accurately). Does it go further than that? Because there is study after study after study that you can read yourself (and rule out misrepresentation) that indicate 4-6 months is more beneficial guideline in regards to allergens. I'm just confused how every single one of them is flawed in your view? The allergy argument I feel is not as compelling as the iron deficiency argument and nutrient deficiency issues, and that often the only way to "exclusively" breastfeed is to not exclusively breastfeed at all, but to give iron and vitamin supplements to meet the nutritional needs that milk is no longer meeting after 4 months of age? If babies are at risk of iron deficiency by waiting six months to introduce foods - if we werent introducing foods for millions of years before we had iron drops, how do believe were the iron needs being met? Re - separating out data of EBF babies - its not a valid point in the issue of which age guideline to use because all of the studies faced the same limitation. But you had presented it as a flaw in allergen studies and a reason to not change the current 6 month guidelines. But the 6 month guidelines had the same limitiations. I just found it a little biased. I'm just confused at how you differentiate cue-breastfeeding with cue-solids feeding?

OK I give up on explaining the quote, clear as mud apparently :) To clarify my point of view, in as simple terms as possible; I do think babies usually become ready for solids between 4 and 6 months (this should not be misconstrued as I support a 4-6 months guideline). Nonetheless, as stated in all my posts, I personally support the idea of waiting until 6 months (which should not be misconstrued as I suggest that babies magically become developmentally ready at bang on 6 months), for the same reasons as WHO (as pointed out by both myself and then in more detail by yourself) as well as the others I have presented. I see flaws in the allergy argument (which should not be misconstrued as me saying that allergies are the only reasons given to introduce earlier than 6 months) as evidenced by the misrepresentation of the swedish study in the BMJ article and the fact that many other studies are not able to separate out data from EBF babies. You are right in saying this is an issue outside of allergy research as well although I don't see why this makes my point less valid. I remain genuinely interested in any links to evidence of the harm (or lost benefit) in waiting until 6 months vs waiting for developmental signs such as (but not limited to) sitting, teeth, chewing, crawling etc if you wish to post them. I am curious as to why it is is often suggested that we follow these developmental cues rather than waiting until 6 months, there may well be some good research out there, but since I haven't seen it, I stand by my original (and subsequent) posts. HTH's

If I changed my sentence to; "I'm not sure there is "so much evidence" to suggest that WHO are wrong in suggesting that reducing the risk of infection and displacement of nutrient dense breastmilk with less nutrient dense complimentary foods by waiting until 6 months nor compelling evidence to suggest that "we could be missing out on benefits or possibly causing harm" by exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months" would that be alright by you then, happy to edit my OP but I think all the extra text might confuse my point, which would remain the same. :) Not sure that I understand your point actually, or how mis-quoting someone elses point is a good way to try to make your own point make more sense. :S Your point was that you don't think WHO guidelines were harmful - my statement was that I don't think that information shoud be relied on either. So if you felt you needed to quote me for some reason as a way to make your own point - you could have just quoted me accurately and agreed with it. But instead you mis-quoted me as saying there was "so much evidence" that waiting 6 months WAS harmful - then proceeded to disagree with a point I never made when your point was actually in agreeance with a point I DID make. Weird. I am in support of the guidelines to wait until 6 months as I'm not aware of compelling evidence to say it is dangerous to do so, or even that there are potential benefits to introduce earlier if baby shows readiness Well - many world-class hospitals, pediatrics boards, a health departments seem to conclude there is very compelling evidence. And the statement goes either way - how much evidence is there that its *not* more beneficial or harmful - and on what basis or from who is it coming that would make it more compelling? Like I said - a lot of the reasons given for breastfeeding til 6months is actually not agreed upon by WHO. The evidence for me is that WHO classes exclusive breastfeeding as often meaning breastfeeding with dietry supplements. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it a little disconcerting if I have a baby needs nutrients and is seeking out food - that I hould withhold food from them and give them some iron drops on the off-chance they might get poisoned to death on food :S hence my point about the limitations of allergy studies. Not sure I quite understand this - as 4-6months is not coming from allergy studies alone. And the only limitations you seem to have referred to are that mothers exclusively breastfeeding at 6 months are somehow in less supply to people doing allergy studies than they are researchers of any other study? Happy that I was able to clear up your take on my "allusions" vs what I was actually saying. :) Not sure it makes sense. Maybe its just me. In your first post you seem to agree with 6 month guideline and presented information as to why. In your second post you were disgruntled that I "assumed" this meant you were in support of the WHO 6 months guidelines, and said you in fact agree with 4-6 months and the information in the first post had nothing to do with WHO or agreeing with a 6 months guideline. In the third post, you then return to saying you actually [i'>do[/i'> support WHO 6 months guideline and you're glad to clear up "my take" on your allusions to support a 6 month guideline.