Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Oct 2014 08:22:45 +0100 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Sender: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Susan, a great post, thank you, reminding us of some crucially
important factors.
Pamela
>Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 08:53:56 -0400
>From: Susan Burger <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Early Solids
>
>Dear all:
>
>There is a wide body of research on how introducing solids too much
>too early can DECREASE weight gain. The vast majority of solids
>that are typically offered to infants as starter foods are simply
>are not calorically dense enough to compensate for lack of enough
>human milk. Some of the strategies to increase caloric content are
>ultimately not healthy - such as offering lots of sugary or fatty
>foods which have a different composition of fat than human milk.
>
>There is also the issue of how much solids can a four month old gut
>tolerate when it was meant to handle a predominately liquid
>diet? What happens to a baby whose mother's milk supply is less
>than 50%? What happens to the digestive tract of a baby who
>suddenly has to deal with drinking a lot more water to compensate
>for the lack of liquid in the diet?
>
>There is also the question of readiness to feed. An infant who is
>not ready to consume solid foods who is pushed to eat it may be
>vulnerable to disregulation of their hunger and satiety cues.
>
>Babies were meant to be on a milk only diet to AROUND six months of
>age. We are the only mammals whose infants start consuming solids
>before we have a full set of teeth - but around six months our
>infants typically start getting some teeth. Medical anthropologist
>believe we may have been chewing up bits of meat and putting it into
>our infants mouths for infants to meet the iron and zinc needs that
>usually outstrip consumption from human milk around six
>months. Typically at that age the caloric needs of an infant are
>really still met by human milk, not solids.
>
>Those of us in the generation whose parents were told to give us
>solids at ridiculously early ages do not seem to be fairing well in
>terms of inflammatory disease at older ages. I think the jury is
>clear cut on use of solids before "around" six months in areas with
>poor sanitation, clear cut on use of solids before four months in
>areas of good sanitation. I haven't read anything peer reviewed
>article yet that has convinced me of a compelling reason that
>introduction of solids before "around" six months in areas of good
>sanitation is beneficial. Furthermore, I think there is an
>increasingly plausible amount of emerging research on gut flora that
>we do not yet understand fully how solids before six months will
>affect future health.
>
>I think the debate over "solids versus formula" before six months is
>sheer speculation regardless of which side you "believe" in.
>
>While I really appreciate Jack Newman's advocacy for breastfeeding
>and his generally good advice, he and I have agreed to disagree on
>test weighing. I think on the topic of pushing solids before four
>months with no good evidence one way or another is another one where
>I will respectfully disagree with him as well because he is
>providing a "blanket" recommendation. My discussions with mothers
>in such situations are entirely on a case by case basis where a lot
>more than the infant's age is taken into consideration.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
***********************************************
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
|
|
|