Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:14:43 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I have to concur with Jamelle...I think many medical schools and nursing schools are still
teaching the myth that "delaying" the introduction of solid foods results in oral aversion.
That myth had its roots in case reports of infants who were not fed by mouth at all for an
extended period of time (e.g. tube feeding) and thus had nothing by mouth whatever (not
just solid foods but no breast or bottlefeeding either).
Some doctor, somewhere, at sometime extrapolated that if babies were not fed solids
early they would become orally averse. Studies were never done to back up that wild
assertion, but like a lot of "medicine" it is a "tradition" that still lingers even in the era of
evidence-based medicine.
At least one study has been done which refutes the myth... the gist of the conclusion of
the study was that since breastfed babies use their entire mouths and jaws to breastfeed
they don't become orally averse to solid foods, and they are better prepared for chewing
than bottlefed babies.
My recollection of the research I've come across that looks at the outcomes of delaying
solids through the second year of life mention anemia, inadequate protein intake, and
rickets without mentioning oral aversion.
Of course I haven't run across every piece of research so maybe it does happen at the
extremes.
One thing to keep in mind is that the primary cause of infant malnutrition the world over
is the too early, and too copious introduction of solid food which displaces breastmilk
from the diet. Solid food no matter how nutritious by adult standards is not good nutrition
for a baby because it is not nutrient dense enough.
During the first year of life no breastmilk should be displaced from the infants diet at all.
The idea behind introducing complementary foods after 6 months is to add it on top of the
mothers milk supply at full lactation in case there is any short fall between what a
mother is producing and what the infant needs. That is why mothers should "nurse first
for the first year" to try to guard against displacing any breastmilk from the diet.
If a baby consumes a lot of solid foods before a year of age it means his mother's milk
supply is low, and measures should be taken to correct the undersupply. If the
undersupply cannot be corrected it would be better for the baby to be fed ABM rather
than have a diet predominantly of solid food.
For some mothers/infant dyads there is no shortfall between what the infant needs and
what the mother can produce throughout the first year and her baby will appear to be
"orally averse" to solid foods. It is not that the mother waited too long to introduce solid
food and the baby can't eat, it's that he doesn't need the solid food and prefers the taste
of his mother's breastmilk to solid food.
After a baby triples his birth weight most mothers will find that their milk supply has
been outpaced by the baby's growing protein requirements and the baby will suddenly
become interested in eating solid foods whereas before he could take them or leave
them.
Hope that helps,
Jennifer O'Quinn IBCLC
***********************************************
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
|
|
|