Fuschia

oh dear sb... possibly more popular when children are into fine motor skills. keep trying though... putting a small spoonful in an eggcup or similar can be popular

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > it looks like there is evidence that there is the > potential for iron deficiencies in these babies, Not really.. from AnalyticalArmadillo, linked above "Insufficient Iron From the paper: More recent data from 2007 raise further concerns on whether six months? exclusive breast feeding would reliably meet iron requirements. US infants exclusively breastfed for six months, versus four to five months, were more likely to develop anaemia and low serum ferritin, which is of concern given irreversible long term adverse effects on motor, mental, and social development after iron deficiency.(20) (21) (22) Such risks might be reduced by improving iron status in pregnancy, delaying umbilical cord clamping, and supplementing infants at risk (for example, those with low birth weight). So I dug out the studies they quoted Only one examines iron levels and infant feeding (20) The others are about the effects of severe anaemia. The study examines 2268 infants, which sounds pretty impressing - until you discover only 136 were breastfed exclusively for six months. Furthermore it's 6 months or more, so some may have been exclusively fed longer than 6 months which is often advised at the moment for high risk infants. They found solids at 4-6 months instead of 6 months + reduced the risk of anaemia, low serum ferritin but not low hemoglobin and concluded: Young children in the United States fully breastfed for 6 months may be at increased risk of iron deficiency. Adequate iron may not be provided by typical complementary infant foods. It adjusted for birth weight and demographic, but no mention of other factors ie prematurity This small study also contradicts the finding of numerous other studies. For example a 2008 study found: Full-term babies who are exclusively breastfed are not at heightened risk of low iron stores by the age of 6 months, even if their mothers were iron-deficient during pregnancy Breast milk is low in iron, but infants can absorb it much more easily than they absorb the iron in fortified formula. Healthy full-term infants are also born with enough iron stores to make deficiency unlikely in the first 6 months. "

From comments on the BMJ site: Adriano Cattaneo, Epidemiologist Institute for Maternal and Child Health, Trieste, Italy "The evidence provided by Fewtrell and collaborators to challenge the WHO 6-month recommendation is no better than the one provided by WHO. It is in fact slightly worse. The WHO recommendation is based on two RCTs and 16 observational studies. All the studies published after 2001 on infection, nutritional adequacy, allergy and coeliac disease, and outcomes in the longer term that Fewtrell and collaborators cite to question the 6-month policy are observational. The only two RCTs they cite are ongoing and can not be used to argue against the WHO 6-month policy. Until further evidence becomes available, I prefer to stand by the WHO recommendations (and hope the UK and Italian DoH will agree with me). Incidentally, the WHO recommendation has never been meant to apply to all infants. It is a public health recommendation to be used for national and professional policies and regulations (for example, on labelling of baby foods). Infants in fact do not wake up the day they reach six months and ask for solids!!! Readiness to eat the first solids is distributed as any other biological variable, a Bell shaped curve that in my opinion (because no research is available to know the real shape) has a mode at six months and is skewed to the right (i.e. more infants are ready after than before six months). Why don?t we concentrate on physiology and neuromuscular development to advise mothers on when to start solids, instead of wandering in search of doubtful evidence? Finally, I am amazed by the rapid spread into the popular press and media of the questionable messages posted by Fewtrell and collaborators in their paper. Less than 24 hours after publication, newspapers in Italy (and I guess in UK and other countries; TV will follow suit) are already talking about a ?new study? showing that exclusively breastfeeding infants to six months may be dangerous. Am I wrong if I ask the authors to make a quick public statement to transparently say that theirs is not a ?new study? but just a respectable opinion based on shaky grounds?" http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5955/reply

[email protected] 020 3299 1517 http://www.kch.nhs.uk/about/getting-involved/ppi/mslc/

I think one thing that's not well put across is that "demand feeding" a slightly older bf baby doesn't mean you only feed a newborn when it asks. Several of mine have been jaundiced/sleepy and needed to be woken every 2-3h to be fed (by syringe in one case and even then she lost 10% of her birthweight) I think what's missing from the info (going on leaflets and HV advice, i never went to any workshops) is the reality of bf a baby... how frequently you need to feed, for eg. I am on baby no 4 and it's only due to recent acquaintance via Mr Google after the tongue tie/expressing trauma that I now know a new baby takes 2-3oz at a time, digests it in 90 mins, will feed something like 12 times in 24h, and from 1m old will consume pretty close to 25oz in 24h (with the amount not increasing as the baby grows) You would have thought 4 children in I would have known some of that... OTOH as bf went well, overall, with nos 1-2 (if not so smoothly for no 3) i just fed as often as it was asked for, and didn't worry too much about the frequency/amount...

If children like pesto can hide peas/spinach etc in it

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,602605

The intestinal flora thing gets reversed once you switch to breastmilk from formula. I think the only irreversible problem can be cows milk protein allergy. I actually had that as a baby/child... so it makes me very cautious about formula. I think if you don't have that family history, there is much less need to be paranoid.

Hummous good for calcium... x

Can recomemnd supersweet corn mixed with petit pois and butter, also carrots cooked with a sloch of honey... great BLW foods

Had to break off to deal with a fight... to add that despite being readmitted on day 3 due to my high blood pressure, and daily MW visits for almost a month, only one of the NHS staff really tried to help when i described my problems. Most of the others seemed to assume I would just be giving formula. I didn't get much encouragement, let alone pressure, to stick with the bf. And having fed 3 children previously, inc twins, you would have thought they would have suspected something like TT was the cause The MW who did help was fantastic, and so were my independent MWs. Clare Kedves is also very dedicated I hear, in fact she phoned me last night (!) and I a going to see her today re newborn's continuing problems

helena handbasket Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fuschia Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It is true though that the first feed of > formula > > does affect the "virgin gut" > > > > > http://www.health-e-learning.com/articles/JustOneB > > > ottle.pdf > > But see this is part of the problem. My son was > just not latching on at all and my milk was > nowhere to be seen. He was losing weight and > turning a bit yellow and I knew he needed to eat > and eliminate to get his system working. But how? > What do you do when you are a new mother and > watching your tiny baby needing to eat and > rejecting your breast full stop? I knew about the > first formula, knew it was a risk, didn't want to > do it but seriously what on earth is a new mom in > full panic supposed to do? I knew if I persisted > it might work, but might not so how long do you > sit and watch your newborn go downhill until you > make a stand as a mother and say "to hell with all > the judgement and rhetoric, I'm feeding my child!" > It's not necessarily rational but it's certainly > some surge of maternal instinct to get your new > baby fed. > > THIS is what drives women crazy, this presumption > that if only you knew better or were stronger in > your convictions or something. > > Ah Fuschia, you and I have sparred on this plenty, > you can tell I'm taking out my frustration on the > wrong victim > hey?:)) Now if only I could find Gwen the breast > feeding Nazi who should be the target for my > grrrrrrr. I do understand how you feel as twin II didn't latch for 11 days, and latest baby has a tongue tie and didn't latch on at all from 6 days old. I was lucky I could express so fed them ebm via syringe (twin II and bottle (syringe wasn't enough) for the latest. I knew offering a bottle wouldn't help his latch (this was before I knew he had TT) So I know how it feels... I was lucky I was prepared with a pump, syringe etc, just in case. I do advise others to get this stuff in for the early days...

Child no 1 eats carrots (loves them) peas, corn, sweet pot, peppers raw and roasted, salad leaves, cuccumber, tomato, parsnips, roast squash. I think he just ended up eating them as I eat them every day.. oh he eats celeery too reluctantly. Won't eat potatoes unless chips Twin 1 won't eat any veg, except potatoes (any way they come) except for cucumber but eats at least 5 portions of fruit per day. twin II, been fed exactly the same, loves tomatoes, cucumber, for a while she refused peas and corn, now she wolfs them down. Just keep offering, let them see you eating, hide where you can. Fruit is basically the same as veg nutritionwise, mostly

Puddleduck was great for our first child when he was 3.

Didn't someonse else post something similar already?

It is true though that the first feed of formula does affect the "virgin gut" http://www.health-e-learning.com/articles/JustOneBottle.pdf

my two tips: clean the bathroom quickly every morning around your shower (quick going over of loo/sink) re mail, have two box files one: things to be actioned two: filing jan/jun or jul/dec - just chuck everything in most recent to the front. if you then need, say, car insurance... you ill know it gets renewed every jan, so easy to find. if for some reason you need 2 years of gas bills, it's far far quicker just to track back through your boxes getting them out.. waste of time filing under gas, elec,phone,car, blah blsh...

Claire.Hobbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether a piece of research is funded or not does > matter, as the financiers can/may decide not to > publish the result...so who knows if the results > would have been made public if the opposite was > found? After all, nobody proofits financially from > breastfed babies. Indeed. But there was no research anyway. The report just highlights findings of some old pieces of research, those which indicate 6m may not always be appropriate, ie in case of family allergy. (Hence the Kings trial omeone mentioned above, which is running to 2013 I believe - when those findings are out, there WILL be new research to consider) The studies referenced re iron don't mean much... read the link I just posted to see more detail.

This is a proper detailed analysis of the report and the studies to which it refers: http://www.analyticalarmadillo.co.uk/2011/01/starting-solids-facts-behind-todays.html?spref=fb

saila, there hasn't been any trial or new research. The article was basically based on picking out from the many many bits of research used by WHO etc, a small no where there are factors that barrant further investigation (like the allergy thing) and presenting it to the press as if it IS new research of some sort. Coincidentally just as the debate hots up re babyfood labelling (manufacturers have carried on stating foods are suitable from 4m and don't want to change) And just to reiterate ... "Three of the four authors of this study, Mary Fewtrell, Alan Lucas and David Wilson, receive funding from the baby food industry. Prof Lucas in particular plays a key role in advising the UK baby food industry, and has opposed the WHO recommendation for many years. In 2003 he went so far as to appear for the defence when one of the largest baby food companies, SMA Wyeth was successfully prosecuted for illegal advertising by Trading Standards. " (babymilk action) The bmj article confirms the authors receive funding from the babyfoo industry, it's not controversial, it's a known fact

Actually, the most depressing thing of all is that the selective rehashing of those cherrypicked pieces of old research which highlight the need for more research into the mechanisms of weaning and allergy... are, predictably, now being used to undermine the whole science of the benefits of breastfeeding. The juggernaut that is the baby feeding industry just rolls right over the science, yet again. I wish the "breastfeeding mafia" was even 100th as powerful. We're talking about the pros and cons of exclusive breastfeeding to 6m. Have a guess what the % in the UK is, of babies exclusively breastfed at 6 months................................ One percent!!!! Just one percent!!! Probably a bit higher in ED due to the demographics (class/education) but nonetheless, the number is neglibible. So the "pressure to bf" we hear so much about can't be that powerful. And I must admit I haven't seen any of it, in my recent struggles to bf my tongue tied newborn. I told any number of midwives, maternity support workers, HV that he wouldn't latch on and there was just ONE NHS midwife who then tried to offer assistance. All the others pretty much shrugged!

We have lots of this: http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/categories/series/09064/# with various storage crates that fit it exactly

I read it a few years ago... mildly diverting as far as such books go!

A study into attitudes of mothers to weaning/early weaning: http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/471.full This was produced when the guideline was still 4m but the comments of mothers about perceptions of hunger etc are very interesting, along with "the rationales used to support particular actions were often relatively simple and based on lay concept of `evidence'. The most frequent justification cited was short-term signs of `health', mostly perceived as signs of contentment or happiness and absence of immediate `disease' or `distress'. "

I am afraid I am a bit of a saddo geek and feel the need to research every issue right back to the source research before deciding what route to take. I think it comes from having a background in economics/statistics and working now with numbers/finance. I detest the dumbing down of science into "common sense" (did you guess?!) What makes me cross about this press flurry is that there is basically no new informtion, it's a viewpoint based on a selective appraisal of some of the previous body of evidence, but by the time it ends up as press reports esp in the tabloids the message gets so mangled it will lead people to think that breastmilk to 6m is no longer adequate... and there was already a lot of pressure from HVs/MILs/rubbish baby mags to back the "hungry baby at 4m" brigade. It's a real shame the BMJ has allowed itself to be the mouthpiece for this shoddy piece.