How much solids for 6 month old?

kiwispiers wrote: I'm not sure that there is "so much evidence" to say that exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months is in any way harmful. punchbiffpow wrote: The term “so much evidence” was never used so I’m not sure why it is being presented as a direct quote? But yes, there are increasingly studies that indicate that waiting after a baby is physically ready can inhibit the body’s ability to adjust kiwispiers wrote:, I did directly quote you in the words "so much evidence", your full sentance was "It would also be plausible to say its silly to wait for WHO to change their guidlelines when there is so much evidence to suggest its not correct and many authorities and countries have already changed and we could be missing out on benefits or possibly causing harm" punchbiffpow wrote: Not really - you quoted me as saying "there is so much evidence to say that exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months is harmful". If I changed my sentence to; "I'm not sure there is "so much evidence" to suggest that WHO are wrong in suggesting the safest option is reducing the risk of infection and avoiding displacement of nutrient dense breastmilk with less nutrient dense complimentary foods by waiting until 6 months nor am I aware of 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 and I think I have included all the extra info in the sentences that follow that one. Certainly did not intend to misrepresent you :) I [b'>am[/b'> 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 so long as you are still EBFing at the 6 month point (as per WHO guidelines) hence my point about the limitations of allergy studies. As I said though, would like to see the info if you have it on hand, am happy to have my mind changed as I am hopefully not done with having children. Happy that I was able to clear up your take on my "allusions" vs what I was actually saying. :) <em>edited by kiwispiers on 04/01/2012</em>

I don't really get the relevance of the rest of your quotes sorry except that possibly you were thinking that I was saying that no babies were physically ready for solids before 6 months and therefore refuting that? I took the general gist as an argument for a 6 month rule due to that guideline being "about more than the prevention of allergies" (what I took as an allusion that 4-6 months guidelines are not looking at overall health) and also the mentions of limitations in the 4-6 months "allergen" studies (which I took again as another allusion that 4-6mths was only coming from allergy experts, and a suggestion that research concluding 4-6 months are less reliable due to a shortage of breastfeeding mothers that WHO or anyone else's research didn't also encounter). Also some of the info was not directed to/at you specifically, but just in the sense that it is relevant to the entire issue of the age of introducing solids and the 4-6 mths vs 6 months controversy (obviously not as relevant to the issue as you found it, lol). Most people are often not aware that WHO guidelines are based primarily on the prevention of gastrointenstinal diseases. While there are a lot of other arguments put forth for a 6 month start, it often all gets mixed together with a mention of the WHO 6 month guideline and people end up with the assumption it all comes from WHO (I used to assume the same thing, and to me I found it very relevant to my opinion on the issue when I read more into it). I never said that my statements had anything to do with the WHO guidelines I took the statement "I always refer to WHO on these sorts of things" as meaning you were in support of their information? And the following information that supported it I saw as a presentation of other factors you believe were in line with it? I did directly quote you in the words Not really - you quoted me as saying "there is so much evidence to say that exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months is harmful". My statement regarding the research showing it is harmful was "Nothing to be relied on as yet, but something to be considered.". The statement "there is so much evidence" was stated that it would be a valid opinion to continue following WHO, and an equally valid opinion not to follow WHO based on "so much evidence that it may not be correct" and that we may be losing benefits or *possibly* causing harm. I don't want to be quoted or interpreted as saying there is "so much evidence" that it is harmful, because there isn't. There is some evidence. Meanwhile there is much evidence that a 4-6mth guideline may be more beneficial - but thats not the same thing as calling 6mths harmful (same way breastfeeding is arguable more beneficial - but that doesnt make formula harmful, if you get my drift). RE: Your WHO statements - yes, I can see your point with that conclusion. On the surface those statements make enough sense because we assume growth/nutrition to refer to the same thing. But thats why I had the asterisks in their other info regarding *growth* - because physical growth and gaining enough micronutrients were treated as separate issues in their rationale. Any nutrient deficiency wasnt considered a dectractor from solely breastfeeding, because the deficiency didnt lead to slowing of physical growth and could therefore be met with supplements rather than food. And yes, technically the statement is correct that there was no more benefit to *growth* by feeding earlier. But there are possible benefits to nutrition, unless you include sole breastfeeding with nutrient supplements as being considered exclusively breastfed (personally I dont think that counts, but evidently WHO do). I'm very interested in it at the moment too. I'll sift through and post the articles about possiblity of harmful effects of waiting too long. I was lucky, I never really had to make much of a decision based on the topic - DS was greedy for food only about a week or two before 6 months, so I just went with it as it didnt make much difference either way.

BTW PBP, if you highlight a hyperlink and click on the the little chain icon you can shorten/customize the text, otherwise posting very long links will mess with the page and ads can appear over the text etc.

PBP I think you misunderstood some of my statements, I am actually of the opinion that most babies become ready for solids generally at some point between 4 and 6 months with every baby being dfferent. What I meant was, I'd be interested to see if there was a correlation between showing developmental signs of readiness and the various risk factors, in order to establish whether the "signs" (and which in particular) are a useful tool in determining when to start (as it is often suggested they are) vs just waiting until 6 months as per WHO guidelines. I don't really get the relevance of the rest of your quotes sorry except that possibly you were thinking that I was saying that no babies were physically ready for solids before 6 months and therefore refuting that? I never said that my statements had anything to do with the WHO guidelines, apart from when I mentioned solids leading to less (nutrient dense) breastmilk being consumed and the risk of infection (through contaminated food). I [b'>did[/b'> directly quote you in the words [i'>"so much evidence"[/i'>, your full sentance was [i'>"It would also be plausible to say its silly to wait for WHO to change their guidlelines when there is [b'>so much evidence[/b'> to suggest its not correct and many authorities and countries have already changed and we could be missing out on benefits or possibly causing harm"[/i'> My rational for following the WHO guidelines to wait would be based on their statement "Given that growth is generally not improved by complementary feeding before six months even under optimal conditions (i.e., nutritious, microbiologically safe foods) and that complementary foods introduced before six months tend to displace breast milk (Cohen et al., 1994; Dewey et al., 1999), the Expert Consultation concluded that the potential health benefits of waiting until six months to introduce other foods outweigh any potential risks." I also provided some additional facts that would also lend support to the idea of waiting and also perhaps influence the choice of weaning foods presented (as mentioned earlier in the thread by BFC.) I am actually interested in the topic, as my son was at the crawling and sitting up stage at 5 months (cave baby theory) and I did wait until after 6 months just to err on the safe side, so if there is evidence to suggest it was potentially harmful to do so I'd be curious to read it. <em>edited by kiwispiers on 04/01/2012</em>

I'm not aware of any research that studied the effect of solids being introduced at various points between 4 and 6 months. Again, this is where it is important to read the reasoning behind WHO guidelines, rather than just quoting their guidelines and making an assumption as to why they were reached. WHO’s 6mth guideline isn’t about pinpointing the exact moment when all babies magically become 'ready' or 'able' to handle solids, but you are looking at it from that point. Its not about the effects of introducing at different ages - Its chiefly about avoiding getting infected from germs on food. A study about the 'effects' between the ages of 4-6months is besides the point. Not to mention one of the major benefits of a 4-6 months guideline is that it allows for individual difference - rather than asserting what we all know not to be true - that all babies magically develop at the same rate and food becomes beneficial vs harmful at a pinpoint in time for everyone. A study trying to pinpoint the exact time 4-6mths where food is beneficial vs harmful is contrary to that whole point. Most of the studies looking at introduction of allergens are also limited in their ability to find large enough numbers of babies who are still exclusively breastfed at 6 months of age WHO are faced with the exact same problem. And as they point out – when they review studies of EBF children, the studies all use a different definition. WHO are limited by the same issues as everyone else. It was interesting that the authors of the article omitted that point. It has been a conclusion reached in several of the allergen studies that between the ages of 4-6 months, the main factor in reducing allergy was whether the infant was still breastfed or not. It was found that it was most beneficial between the ages of 4-6mths, with greater protection if breastmilk was still present. (nothing I've read has mentioned anything being more or less beneficial between 4-6 months aside from that factor). I'm not sure that there is "so much evidence" to say that exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months is in any way harmful. The term “so much evidence” was never used so I’m not sure why it is being presented as a direct quote? But yes, there are increasingly studies that indicate that waiting after a baby is physically ready can inhibit the body’s ability to adjust. I did not present it as indisputable and I dont know my thoughts on it - but its there none the less. This is over and above the nutrition issue - As above – WHO acknowledges this in their own publications that deficiencies are a risk in EBF for 6months, and the way to negate it is with supplements (WHO as an authority and the cave baby theory do not mesh - see below. the biggest worry is iron and zinc deficiency after this point although there is certainly a fair amount of controversy over whether EBF fed infants are as at risk as has been claimed Well – again, you either hold WHO as the authority or you don't. You can't pick and choose based on what fits your beliefs or arguments best on any particular topic. WHO's statement is that it is increasingly difficult after 6 months to provide nutrition solely through breastmilk. Their chief reason for waiting six months is to avoid food poisoning, and their chief reasoning for introducing at 6 months is that malnutrition is a greater risk than dying of food poisoning. How can they be infallible about one thing, but possibly wrong about something else? My mum told me that babies were ready for solids when they could crawl over to a piece of food, sit up, put it in their mouth and eat it. Given my cave-baby philosophy her simple logic appeals to me My view is similar – without the crawling part. Not only have our food sources not usually been laying around on the ground to pick up in the manner of some 4-legged species. But human babies also cannot get to breastmilk without physical assistance. We do not sit across the room and wait for the baby to ambulate over to us as a sign of their need for or ability to digest breastmilk. But yes, I would agree it should be based on seeking it and physically being able to consume it). Hence why a 4-6 month guideline makes sense. Babies dont magically all become "Ready" at the age of 6 months. It is contradictory to suggest babies know when they want milk so it should be given on demand - but then to say we should refrain from giving anything else on demand. They are either capable of knowing what they want/need or they're not - again, we cannot pick and choose based on what suits an argument. RE: your comment that you cannot scientifically know a babies readiness for solids without tests – well, similarly you cannot know a babies hunger for milk without tests. You seem to support relying on observing a babies behaviours to recognize a babies need for milk - but then deny that the same could ever be possible in the case of solids? We obviously have no way of scientifically knowing if a baby is hungry for milk without a bunch of tests either. Some babies arent ready for solids until after 6 months - do we suggest gut swabbing everyone at 6 motnhs just to be sure? RE – WHO being the authority and the cave baby theory – the two do not gel. WHO believes that supplements should be given in cases where the 6 month guideline leads to nutrient deficiencies. But cave babies do not have vitamin supplements (especially not supplements laying around on the ground for them to crawl over to, pick up and eat). So I’m not sure how those two points are reconciled? Cave babies never had any 6 months guideline - so how can we dismiss out of hand any baby who looks for solids before 6 months with this notion?

I thinks its important to remember that the WHO guidelines are based on more than just prevention of allergies Yes, that’s true. And so are the guidelines of the pediatrics boards, world-class hospitals, and health departments who either remained at or changed back to 4-6 months. Its not a case of some lone whacko allergy scientists saying introduce at 4-6 months – but it may or may not rot your baby’s guts out in the process. I do personally look to the World Health Organisation for advice and guidelines in these sorts of things as they have the resources and motivation to review the many hundreds of studies When holding a body such as WHO as the authority on such guidelines, it is important to make yourself aware of their reasoning behind the guidelines. You have presented WHO as the authority - but then used different reasoning than they do to support the authority behind their guideline.WHO’s 6 month guideline is justified by WHO based on the following: *The chief reason cited is to avoid gastro-intestinal infection from bacteria present on food *The second reason cited is longer duration of amenorrhea (something obviously aimed at lowering birth rates in certain regions). *A third benefit they mention is maternal weightloss Those are their chief reasonings for the 6 months guideline - but none of them are the reasonings you present to uphold their guidelines. Other pertinent information in their publications on the processes/reasonings that lead to their 6 month guideline: *Overall, their investigations found there were usually no adverse affects on *growth* to EBF for 6mths *They then go on to acknowledge that in some cases, certain micronutirent needs may not be met by exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months (namely iron, zinc, riboflavin, vitamins A, B6 and and B12) *They then reason that deficiencies in those does not seem to adversely affect *growth* by the age of 6 months, so deficiencies caused by breastfeeding should be met with supplements rather than food *They note that after 6 months of age, nutrients are increasingly unable to be met solely by breastmilk *They state that their 6 months guideline is based upon weighing up deficiencies in above micronutirients, the fact that such dificiencies do not seem to affect *growth* and can be met by supplements, and the risk of dying from a gastro-disease from any germs on food. They decided dying of a gastro-disease posed a greater risk prior to 6 months and nutritional deficiency posed the greater risk after 6 months *There is nothing in their reasoning or statements about readiness, or introducing before 6 months being harmful in any sense other than a food-borne germ creating disease or any of the other reasons stated in your response that defend the WHO 6 months guideline. *WHO's information also alludes to the fact that the risk of gastro infection is higher in developing countries (however acknowledge that does not mean there is no risk in industrialized countries). Thi certainly begs the question on whether the guidelines should be region-based. Further, WHO's guidlelines to date have been based on reviews of studies focussed primarily on comparing a 3-4mths guideline vs a 6mth guideline. Not a 4-6 month guildeline vs a 6 months guideline. When holding WHO as an overall authority on such matters, you should also take into account how well their other conclusions fit in with other infomation you seem to support regardng feeding. For one examaple, a quote from one of their publications: “No significant reduction in risk of atopic outcomes has been demonstrated in studies from Finland, Australia and Belarus”. (just wanted to add this as it seems to contradict some breastfeeding stats regularly presented on the boards) I do personally look to the World Health Organisation for advice and guidelines in these sorts of things as they have the resources and motivation to review the many hundreds of studies Yes, that would be a fair argument except that the reasoning you use and the conclusions they put forth as a result of their reviews are completely different. On top of that, scientists agree that there is an increased risk of allergies with solids given before 4 months Very correct. But not sure how it is evidence to uphold a 6mth guidelines over a 4-6moths guideline?? Both sides of the fence agree on 4 month minimum. It doesnt not make 6months anymore automatically preferable than it makes 4-6months automatically preferable.

May I know why with all the available research any healthcare professional would suggest solids for a 4 month old? It is sometimes suggested that it will help with reflux although there is also evidence to suggest that much like thickened feeds it can do more damage than good. I found DS's reflux got better around the 4 month mark and worsened when we started solids at around 7 months. SIL started solids at 4 months on Peds advice and attributed that to the improvement in her DS's reflux, toughie. Thanks always looking to learn, all above mentioned babies on bm? Is reflux on the increase or are we know learning more about it? My son was EBF until 6 1/2 months then BF with solids, SIL mixed feeding from birth, Gina Ford routine from day one, 100% formula by 6 months. Our babies were born 2 weeks apart and both were refluxers from birth. I don't think reflux is on the increase, there have always been spilly babies but def increase in babies being medicated for GERD. I think in the past these babies would have been labelled as having "colic" and given gripe waters. Current guidelines to sleep babies on their backs does make it worse (not saying guidelines should be ignored though) and certainly it did seem to make a difference when my baby started crawling, pulling up. SIL and I clearly had different viewpoints on it though as did our pediatricians. Mine was of the opinion that as long as baby was happy and weight gain good (both babies in the 98th centile) it was simple reflux not GERD and no need for meds. I took note of things in my diet and cut back wheat and dairy (in both my diet and his) found smaller feeds effective and we did not medicate. SIL's baby was on Losec from 4 weeks old until 14 months old, did try a switch to Soy formula at around the 6 month mark and then to an AP formula. Both babies showed a very similar sleeping pattern despite being fed very differently but SIL attributed any night waking to reflux and medicated as well as using CIO methods whereas I attributed it to hunger/emotional needs and fed DS in the night if he asked for it. Both started sleeping through at similar times. Different strokes for different folks. :)

I think its important to remember that the WHO guidelines are based on more than just prevention of allergies and WHO do not caution nor suggest delaying the introduction of any potential allergens later than 6 months. I do personally look to the World Health Organisation for advice and guidelines in these sorts of things as they have the resources and motivation to review the many hundreds of studies and the motivation to provide a less biased conclusion than some others. Some of the risks with introducing solids before a baby is physically ready include malnutrition (as many popular early weaning foods are nutritionally poor compared to milk) and infection. Salivary amylase (which breaks down starch) starts being produced at around the 6 month mark, before that the only way a baby can digest complex carbs is if they are given with breastmilk which scientists speculate is present in breastmilk purely for this purpose. Formula does not contain amylase. Children make it in adult levels by around age two which is one of the reasons that breastfeeding for two years is beneficial. On top of that scientists agree that there is an increased risk of allergies with solids given before 4 months and the consensus is that most babies will be physically ready by the time they reach 6 months, without doing a gut biopsy and saliva test on your child you have no real way of knowing for sure although you can try and guess based on developmental signs if you don't want to wait. (I'm not aware of any research that studied the effect of solids being introduced at various points between 4 and 6 months AND controlled for where the babies were at in terms of the presence of teeth, being able to sit unaided, loss of tongue thrust reflex, willingness to eat, ability to put food into their own mouth and chew etc etc but I would be very interested in reading it if it exists. Most of the studies looking at introduction of allergens are also limited in their ability to find large enough numbers of babies who are still exclusively breastfed at 6 months of age as many mothers have opted to give either solids or formula before then. As BFC said, in the infamous "breast is not best" article a while back one statement in support of earlier introduction of gluten cited a swedish(?) study that showed celiac rates increased when guidelines for solids introduction were raised to 6 months. The authors of the study itself however explained that this result was likely due to the fact that more women were formula feeding by this point and so breastmilk, not age was the relevant factor. It was interesting that the authors of the article omitted that point. I'm not sure that there is "so much evidence" to say that exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months is in any way harmful, the biggest worry is iron and zinc deficiency after this point although there is certainly a fair amount of controversy over whether EBF fed infants are as at risk as has been claimed and why (whole other debate there perhaps for another thread) and FF babies are already being supplemented. My mum told me that babies were ready for solids when they could crawl over to a piece of food, sit up, put it in their mouth and eat it. Given my cave-baby philosophy her simple logic appeals to me. :) <em>edited by kiwispiers on 04/01/2012</em>

It all depends on how you want to define the word "official". *WHO recommendations since 2001 have been 6 months and still are(many rumours since 2008/2009 this will be changing, but no confirmation as yet). *"Official" Departments governing overall health issues in general in some countries never adopted the six month guideline. Some have recently change back to 4-6 months. *The "official" governmental authorities for developing recommendations on specific issues such as allergies and immunology in a large number of countries now recommend 4-6 months. Some go so far as to name 6 months as the maximum. . *Many "official" recommendations from health advisory boards recommend 4-6 months, sometimes 6 months maximum. *Many "official" recommendations from leading hospital and healthcare institutions and providers are 4-6 months. Some are 6 month maximum. *The "official" recommendations from both private and publically funded research and case studies points increasingly to 4-6 months. Occasionally with a 4 month minimum or a 6 month maximum thrown in for good measure. You will find the more specific the authority, the quicker the changes occur in response to current research. This is because the broader authorities use the recommendations of the specific authorities to shape their guidelines. Hence there is a lag. Its not about broader authorities being more "official" or more reliable to be followed - but that their recommendations are based on the specific recommendations (obviously when relying on recommendations for the specific authority, the specific authority has to make them first). The broader the scope of the authority, the longer they take to change. It could be plausible to recommend to hold off acting on recent research and changes because WHO guidelines remain the same (having said that hospitals and health providers are often already acting on it). It would also be plausible to say its silly to wait for WHO to change their guidlelines when there is so much evidence to suggest its not correct and many authorities and countries have already changed and we could be missing out on benefits or possibly causing harm. Who knows. Its relevant to consider the reasoning behind some guidelines - for example, the guidline for milk before solids is not that it makes a difference in what order they occur, but that this was used as a way to ensure milk was maintained as the primary nutritional source (not sure why they can't just tell us that and let us handle the logisitics ourselves :P). In a similar vein, 6 months is largely a blanket guideline based on info that 4-6 months would often be ok, but to be on the safe side 6 months is recommended based on it being considered safer to urge on the side of waiting too long than starting too early (we're evidently not capable of being trusted to make the correct judgement, or decide for ourselves whether we want to urge on the side of waiting too long). Recently research now showing waiting too long to introduce solids is just as harmful as introducing too early (in the sense of inhibiting the baby's body's ability to learn to process it). Nothing to be relied on as yet, but something to be considered. I'm not saying throw the 6 month info out the window as useless. It's such about-faces that leave me with little faith in following anything at all just because it happens to be an "official" or popular guideline or theory or research at the time. But as a lot of it is new and quite different to what we've been presented with as a "definite" guidline until very recently - its important reading. Shouldnt necessarily discount previous info out of hand, but should definitely be considered in conjunction with it. Personally I take it all as saying nothing except "Unless there are medical complications - feed your baby when they demonstrate readiness - not before, not after. And hey, as a little tip, you should probably be on the lookout for it between 4-6 months of age, and if you find it varying outside this, seek some advice to stay on the safe side". :) <em>edited by punchbiffpow on 04/01/2012</em>

Yes, absolutely sandfly, but they are not policy documents and many confirm the need for further research. The AAP's policy is to encourage exclusive breastfeeding "for at least 4 months but preferably 6 months." No changes more recent than 2008 have been made that I am aware of. The WHO, UK NHS and the Department of Health Australia still recommend 6 months. Will this change? Most likely at some point, and I believe that it should change to reflect current evidence, but I'm just saying that it hasn't changed yet. It feels like I've got into an argument - I'm really not arguing any point at all! My personal opinion based on what I've read isn't really relevant so I haven't even mentioned it ;). Eta think I'm talking at cross purposes. Sorry. Just ignore me. <em>edited by BFC on 04/01/2012</em>

but BFC the articles (well, the brief summaries in the post) *do* refer to introducing complimentary foods ("solids") at between 4 and 6 months, rather than only from 6 months as we have all been told (AAP etc seem to be on board). Ah well, by the time our children are having their children it will all be completely different again....

Thanks for posting! They're very interesting articles. As far as I'm aware, though, no public health policy changes have been made as to the timing of the introduction of complementary foods which is what I was talking about (I wasn't talking about the introduction of allergens, sorry if I wasn't clear - as per my next post, many nutritionists agree that there is no need to delay the introduction of allergens although there is still the need for more research). As I say, nutrition is an evolving science and as more information becomes available I would hope that infant feeding guidelines reflect the evidence we have. <em>edited by BFC on 03/01/2012</em>

They arent opinion articles. The article I was referring to was an opinion article. I wasn't talking about the articles you posted, cos you hadn't posted them yet :D. I know, sorry I didn't mean you were saying those were opinion articles - I just meant to highlight that the official advice actually did change and it was due to large scale longitudinal studies and not opinion articles as such :)

They arent opinion articles. The article I was referring to was an opinion article. I wasn't talking about the articles you posted, cos you hadn't posted them yet :D.

In the UK it's "4 to 6 months" and healthcare professionals always say that 6 months is recommended, but not always possible/practical. I started DD on solids at 18 weeks because she was hungry. I know there's "sleep regression" mentioned a lot as a cause for night waking and it's mooted that parents confuse it with a sign of wanting to be weaned, but I knew without a doubt that DD was hungry, pure and simple. Not knowing anything about the process, I followed the baby rice packet's instructions and made up about 2 teaspoons' worth, which she gulped down and the expression on her face was very much "come on, keep it coming, call that a meal?!" She got bored of purées within a couple of weeks, so I introduced lumpy bits quite quickly, which meant, in turn, that she was having chopped up normal meals and pieces of fruit at around 6 months. I've also always worked on the assumption that if I wouldn't eat what I served up, then I can't blame them if they didn't... which made for a few interesting moments - "oo, what've you brought for DD's lunch?" "er... goat's cheese and green bean salad?" "Really?!" "Er, yeah... is that wrong?" ;)

They arent opinion articles. They are reputable studies, quite a few of them and have already been changed into policy/recommendation in many countries by the appropriate health agencies http://www.aaaai.org/global/latest-research-summaries/Current-JACI-Research/Infant-feeding-guidelines-may-help-to-promote-the-.aspx *Recommendations from American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. 2010 *introducing egg after 10-12 months increased risk of egg allergy *introduction to cooked egg at 4-6 months of age [i'>reduced[/i'> risk to the most significant degree in the study *Duration of breastfeeding and age of food introduction influenced egg allergy in no way whatsoever http://www.kidswithfoodallergies.org/resourcespre.php?id=108 *2008 American studying withdrawing previous recommendatios Re restriction of allergens in until age 2-3, in light that they do not reduce risk of allergies and may increase it *recommends solids within 4-6 months *questions the impact of mothers diet during pregnancy and breastfeeding on causing or reducing risk of any allergy *results not convincing that breastfeeding reduces asthma risk *upholds current info that suggest bf reduces risk of excema http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/allergy/Infant_Feeding_Guidelines_for_Prevention_of_Allergic_Disease.pdf *Royal Childrens Hospital of Australia recommendations *Mothers pregnancy and Bf diet should not be restricted because it does not impact allergy in any way *solids recommended at 4-6 months *no benefit in restricting any allergen from an infants diet past 6 months http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/742236 *American academy of pediatrics recommends solids no earlier than 4 months, and [i'>no later[/i'> than 6 months *no benefit in resticting allergens at any age http://www.pca.com.au/pdfs/earlypeanutconsumption.pdf *consumption of peanuts in infancy reduces allergy risk http://www.allergy.org.au/images/stories/aer/infobulletins/2010pdf/ascia_infant_feeding_advice_2010.pdf *Australian society of clinical immunology and allergy guidelines. 2010 *Introduce solids before 6month and after 4 months *restricting intake of allergens not beneficial in reducing allergy *Delaying intake of allergens may INCREASE risk of allergy <em>edited by punchbiffpow on 03/01/2012</em>

Re. introduction of potential allergens, current thinking (which obviously may change as further research is carried out) is that by introducing solids *only* when a baby is ready (as opposed to 3-4 months), the gut is better able to deal with potential allergens and without this increased risk of allergy there is no longer any need to introduce them one at a time with a waiting period to observe for reactions. If I recall correctly, there has been some recent research suggesting that the introduction of gluten while a baby is still breastfeeding may decrease the risk of celiac disease. This has been interpreted by some to suggest that it is important to introduce gluten at a very early age. Other nutrition experts, however, believe that starches are not necessary (or indeed may be harmful) to young babies, as they lack the digestive enzymes needed to digest them. Ah yes, nutrition is indeed an evolving science :).

Actually I had a baby in Australia in July and the dr's there were saying that the guidelines were changing and that they will now recommend that solids are introduced from 4 months A lot of people got quite excited after the publication of an opinion article in the BMJ at the beginning of last year; however, this was not new research nor even a systematic review and simply called for government guidelines on the timing of introduction of solids to be reviewed. No official advice has actually changed although a lot of misleading media reports appeared at the time, causing no small amount of confusion! However, as the authors of the opinion paper say, "[w'>e are not suggesting that it is ‘dangerous’ for infants to be exclusively breast-fed for 6 months, but consider that the age at which infants need or want solid foods is likely to vary from infant to infant, as with any other developmental milestone." Given the available evidence that introducing solids *before* a baby is ready can be harmful, and that babies ready before 6 months are not harmed by waiting a bit longer, a "blanket" recommendation of 6 months has been found to be helpful in some countries. Watching for individual signs of readiness however would still be suggested by infant feeding advisors, and introducing solids on the baby's own developmental schedule :). <em>edited by BFC on 03/01/2012</em>

RE: The guidelines changing with allergens, I was aware they were now doing an about face and saying delaying things til after 2 increases the risk of reaction. The article I read last year I think also included nuts - the particular study was in relation to another culture (can't remember specific details) giving biscuit/rusk type things to their infants from teething age and this reduced the incidence of nut allergies (the rusks had nut content). I'll have a search around and try to locate the article again. Gets my goat when they reverse all the recommendations. Grrrrr. lol <em>edited by punchbiffpow on 03/01/2012</em>

May I know why with all the available research any healthcare professional would suggest solids for a 4 month old? Actually I had a baby in Australia in July and the dr's there were saying that the guidelines were changing and that they will now recommend that solids are introduced from 4 months and that the old "don't introduce potential allergens" until 1 or 2 is also out the window - with the exception of nuts. A GP and a pead both told me they had now decided that delaying introduction of these foods was seen to actually increase the incidence of allergies. Perhaps I'm conservative and have chosen not to follow that advice - I'm something of a flag waving BF'er, firmly believing that food under 1 is just for fun - but though your might like to know that the "official" advice appears to be changing.

May I know why with all the available research any healthcare professional would suggest solids for a 4 month old? In our case it was because DD had severe silent reflux, had a bad reaction to most formulas (I couldn't BF), was displaying signs of hunger in between her milk feeds and as mentioned, is a very tall baby. I had read up on the topic before DD's doc had suggested introducing solids and we commenced with tiny amounts which she responded to really well. Again, as we all agree, it really depends on each baby : ) Thank you for taking the time to answer, BFC has some info on reflux from a speaker at our last seminar let me see if I can get it to you. I do hope it's smooth sailing from this point on.

May I know why with all the available research any healthcare professional would suggest solids for a 4 month old? It is sometimes suggested that it will help with reflux although there is also evidence to suggest that much like thickened feeds it can do more damage than good. I found DS's reflux got better around the 4 month mark and worsened when we started solids at around 7 months. SIL started solids at 4 months on Peds advice and attributed that to the improvement in her DS's reflux, toughie. Thanks always looking to learn, all above mentioned babies on bm? Is reflux on the increase or are we know learning more about it?

May I know why with all the available research any healthcare professional would suggest solids for a 4 month old? It is sometimes suggested that it will help with reflux although there is also evidence to suggest that much like thickened feeds it can do more damage than good. I found DS's reflux got better around the 4 month mark and worsened when we started solids at around 7 months. SIL started solids at 4 months on Peds advice and attributed that to the improvement in her DS's reflux, toughie.

Thanks for keeping this thread going ladies. . Like you have all suggested, I am going by instinct and taking cues from my LO. Since adjusting her meals based on your suggestions, DD has been self-settling at nap and bed time for the first time since being born which is wonderful as she developed bad sleep habits thanks to her reflux. Obviously something is working (for now) and hubby and I are so thankful! Great news M.

May I know why with all the available research any healthcare professional would suggest solids for a 4 month old?

I'm a slow learner Kiwispiers as we say in Canada slower than molasses in January, here is my time line, trial and error or learning curve. First child nan formula, nestle Cerelac and jar foods :\:, second baby bm for a few nightmarish weeks then formula BUT home cooked food including rice, oats etc, third child ebf, blw mostly organic produce..... common denominator for all three, co-sleeping, baby wearing and attachment parenting, had my first in 2000 my last in 2005.

just out of curiosity, and without naming anyone, was your "expert" the one who is often mentioned in regard to sleep training? LOL..... Ever so subtle. ;) haha, subtle as a brick I know..;) I used to use the wholesomebabyfood site too and recently discovered http://www.wholesometoddlerfood.com/ was a bit like HAK in terms of running more on instinct and being "baby led", but my gut feeling has always been that little cave babies would not be eating rice cereal, (and I do often bang on about babies and starch) so I went straight to meat and fresh fruits from day one which is co-incidentally up with latest 'advice". The benefit of having a refluxer is that its very obvious when a new food does not agree with them s mummy ends up wearing the breakfast she so lovingly prepared (in our case oats and corn got big thumbs down from DS's esophagus !)

I like this site http://wholesomebabyfood.momtastic.com/solids.htm