Helen Butler wrote:
> A baby of four months sees its mother stick something in her mouth, she is
> relaxed and enjoys it.  Wow, lookslike fun, no iea what it is, must try!!!
>
>   
You sound like there is no difference between the interest in solids and 
general curiousity.  There is a big difference.  One of the ways that 
I've heard it recommended to see which you are dealing with is to hand a 
baby who has been reaching for solids a clean, empty spoon.  If this 
makes baby happy, baby was just curious or wanted a toy like mom's.  If 
baby still is staring at and demanding food from mom, then it is 
actually a baby who is wanting solid food.  Also, anyone who has really 
seen a baby demanding solids will know how different this is than a baby 
demanding a toy or anything else.
>
>
> Trusting to curiousity: the baby has no idea is connected to food going into
> his GI tract, but *we do* -- !!!???  We know that it takes about 6 months of
> extra-gestate life for the gut, the immune system etc to mature and for the
> baby to be protected enough for food.
>   
But the point you are missing is that a baby doesn't _need_ to 
understand this.  Whether you look at it from a religious or 
evolutionary perspective, it makes sense for the survival of humans for 
babies to signal when they are ready for solids.

The other thing that has happened with this conversation is that it has 
focused entirely on one of the signs of readiness.  There are others 
also.  Teeth, for instance.  And the loss of the tongue-thrust reflex.

Babies are different.  They will be ready for solids at different ages.  
All that research can do is tell us what is the _average_ age of 
readiness.  Should we deny a baby solids when he is ready because he's 
ready early?  Should we force-feed a baby solids before he is ready if 
he becomes ready late?

That's one thing I don't understand about those who think the calendar 
tells when a baby is ready for solids;  what about the baby who doesn't 
want solids at six months?  If that baby's lack of interest can be a 
sign as to whether he is ready, why can't a baby's interest also be a sign?

In my mind, introducing solids to a baby who is demanding them, showing 
other signs of readiness, and is somewhere around half a year old is 
just part of the same approach as cue-feeding and child-led weaning.  It 
is letting the child take control of his own food consumption.  I'm not 
suggesting that the child's control is absolute, but a child at any age 
knows whether he should eat more or not.  He should be able to choose 
among a few reasonable options picked by a grown-up.

To insist on feeding solids at exactly six months because that is the 
average time of gut closure sounds to me like insisting that a 
breast-fed baby eat every two hours because that is what research shows 
to be the average stomach emptying time for breastmilk.

I guess I just trust babies and trust mothers' instincts about their 
babies more than I trust technology, research, or calendars.  Perhaps 
that's part of the difference between the approach of LLL leaders and 
LCs?  I know that if LLL ever changed its recommendations to be based on 
the calendar rather than baby's readiness, I would be unable in good 
conscience to continue to be a leader.

I must say that I appreciate how polite everyone is being in talking 
about an issue that many of us feel very strongly about.  Thank you to 
everyone who has been making me think more clearly about this issue and 
why I have the beliefs about it that I do.

Christine

             ***********************************************

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome